SOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of R.S.A. Nos. 1261 of 1974 and 1264 of 1973 as common questions of law are involved in both of them.

(2.) THE first point for consideration is whether limitation for challenging the order of dismissal commences on the date when the order is passed or on the date when the statutory appeal is dismissed. The learned Courts below have found this point against the Appellants on the basis of Sita Ram Goel v. The Municipal Board tyanpur and Ors. : A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 1036. Therein it was doubted whether the doctrine of merger could be made applicable to appeals arising out of special enactments. However, in a later judgment reported as Somnath Sahu v. The State of Orissa, 1969 Unreported Judgments (S.C.) Volume I 351, the Supreme Court has laid down that the original order of termination passed by the Appointing Authority merges in the appellate order of the appellate authority. It was observed therein as under:

(3.) IN R.S.A. No. 1264 of 1973 Parshotam Singh v. State of Punjab etc. the additional point on which the Appellant has been nonsuited is that the Courts at Patiala had no jurisdiction to try this case. This Appellant is said to have embezzled some funds belonging to the Government, which are admittedly being recovered at Patiala. Since the funds are being recovered at Patiala, at least a part of the cause of action has accrued there and the Courts at Patiala had the jurisdiction to try this case. On merits, a finding has been recorded in favour of the Appellant and he has only been non -suited on these two technical grounds.