STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GANGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.1987 passed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar, by which the appeal filed by the defendants-appellants was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 10.6.1987 passed by the trial Judge was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff- respondent Ganga Ram was serving as Accounts Clerk in the Irrigation Department when he was dismissed from service because of his conviction in a criminal case, which was upheld by the High Court. On the basis of this conviction, the dismissal order was passed against the plaintiff-respondent on 3.9.1990. Later on, however, it was decided to issue show cause notice before reverting/dismissing the plaintiff-respondent. This order was set aside by the Civil Court on 12.4.1983. The State filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.4.1983 of the trial Court, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge Amritsar, on 29.9.1984. The learned Additional District Judge held the dismissal order as void ab initio and non est. It was alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that the Superintending Engineer again issued a show cause notice without supplying copies of enquiry report, suspension order and other papers and the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed from service without any opportunity having been given. It was also alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that the order of dismissal was void, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, mala fide and inoperative in law and, therefore, it should be set aside. During the pendency of the present suit, the plaintiff-respondent reached the age of his superannuation on 31.3.1987 and, therefore, the perpetual injunction, asked for by him was not granted.

(3.) The defendants-appellants filed written statement on 11.11.1986 in which they, besides taking preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable, stated that the plaintiff-respondent had not come to the Court with clean hands and that notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not valid. The defendants-appellants also denied the allegations of the plaintiff-respondent on merits, alleging that the plaintiff-respondent had been dismissed by a competent authority and the defendants-appellants had a right to dismiss the plaintiff-respondent on the basis of his conviction.