PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS Vs. KARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Bathinda dated 17.8.1982 dismissing the appeal of the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1981 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Bathinda.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-appellants from effecting recovery from him to the tune of Rs. 9.887.10 in pursuance of orders dated 30.7.1976 and 11.10.1979 passed by appellants No. 2 and 3, respectively.

(3.) The respondent was working as an Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies, Ram Pura Phul, District Bathinda. During his tenure, some theft had taken place in respect of which he was challaned under Sections 457/380/409 of the Indian Penal Code. In the criminal proceedings, he was acquitted vide order dated 27.10.1973 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda as all the prosecution witnesses had resiled from their earlier statements. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was held responsible for the theft. Appellant No. 2 vide order dated 30.7.1976 held the respondent responsible for the theft and ordered for the recovery of Rs. 9887.10 from him. Respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed by appellant No. 3 vide order dated 24.9.1979. Respondent in his suit claimed that in view of the fact that, he had been honourably acquitted in the criminal proceedings, no departmental action could be taken against him and therefore, he was not liable to the sum of Rs. 9887.10 as demanded by the appellants. This contention was accepted by the trial Court. The trial Court also overruled the objection of the appellants about the suit being barred by time. The trial Court was of the view that since the orders imposing penalty on the respondent were void ab initio, they did not need to be set aside and, therefore, had to be ignored. Thus, according to him, there was no period of limitation prescribed for the present suit.