NACHHATTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot. The case was heard after notice of motion in great detail. This regular second appeal is admitted.

(2.) Now I proceed to decide the regular second appeal on merits.

(3.) The admitted facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Clerk in the office of the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Kotkapura on 30.11.1972. Thereafter his services were regularised. The appellant applied for leave for three months on 7.1.1974. However, he was granted only 17 days leave. As the appellant was unable to join his duty, he continued applying for leave. During his absence on leave, a case under Sections 409, 471 and 467 of Indian Penal Code was registered against him at Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot, vide F.I.R. No. 135 dated 27.12.1976, the appellant reported on duty on 1.1.1977 in the office of the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Moga for joining his duty but he was not allowed to resume duty due to registration of a criminal case against him. The appellant was finally acquitted by the High Court on 1.2.1985. After his acquittal, the appellant again approached the Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Moga on 12.3.1985 but his joining report was not accepted. On 13.3.1985 the plaintiff-appellant approached the Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Muktsar. He too did not allow him to join duty. On 14.3.1985, the plaintiff-appellant sent an application through registered post to the Chief Conservator of Soil, Punjab but to no effect. The department in fact did not allow him to join duty because it terminated his services, because he absented himself from duty, on 17.9.1974. Aggrieved against the order of termination of his services dated 17.9.1974 terminating his services on the ground of absence from duty, the appellant filed a civil suit for declaration that the impugned order of termination was an action by way of punishment. As the order was passed on account of absence from duty due to overstaying leave and as such no such order could be passed unless the plaintiff was given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action as provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The Sub Judge, Faridkot, vide his judgment and decree dated 22.12.1987 decreed the suit of the plaintiff thereby declaring that the order dated 17.9.1974 is void and the plaintiff continued to be in service as Clerk and is entitled to all consequential reliefs. One of the issues raised in the suit was Issue No. 3 which related to the question of limitation. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the order of dismissal from service was void and, therefore, such an order should be ignored and it was not necessary to get it set aside.