LAWS(P&H)-2011-12-376

RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Decided On December 21, 2011
RAMESH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of order dated 19 th April, 2011 passed by the trial court whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly the facts may be noticed. The plaintiff-petitioner was posted as Constable at Gurdaspur and on 13 th February, 2003, he was ordered to be attached on security for six months with PRTC, Jehan Khalan. The petitioner could not join at Jehan Khalan due to an accident for about 46 days and he remained absent from duty without sanction of leave. After a departmental inquiry, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 06.11.2003 ordered forfeiture of two years service with permanent effect for the purpose of the annual increment and further ordered that the period of suspension shall be counted as a period of suspension. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner against the said order, was dismissed on 26.12.2003 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Amritsar. Thereafter, the plaintiff-petitioner had filed a civil suit on 01.03.2007 challenging the order dated 6.11.2003. An application was filed on 21.12.2010 for amendment of the plaint seeking to challenge order dated 26.12.2003 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police whereby the appeal of the plaintiff-petitioner had been dismissed. The said application was dismissed by the trial court on 19.04.2011.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court had rejected the application primarily on the ground that the order dated 26.12.2003 could not be challenged in 2010 whereas the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police has recurring effect and, therefore, the application for amendment could not be said to be beyond limitation. He further submitted that in the interest of justice, the application for amendment of the plaint ought to have been allowed by the trial court.