GURDEV SINGH Vs. MUNICIPALITY BATHINDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal, at the hands of dis -satisfied plaintiff, is directed against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby first appeal of the defendant Municipal Committee (now Municipal Corporation) was partly allowed, denying the arrears of salary for the period during which the plaintiff was not allowed to join his duty. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in para 2 of the impugned judgment, are that Gurdev Singh working as Peon, with Municipality Bathinda, filed a suit against Municipality Bathinda as well as against the State of Punjab for declaration to the effect that resolution No. 596 dated 26.12.1984 vide which the services of the plaintiff were terminated was illegal, void, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act and thus not binding upon the plaintiff. Further order bearing No. 14 dated 20.1.1986 communicated to the plaintiff vide which the stay of the Director had been vacated was also illegal, void and arbitrary and the plaintiff was entitled to his reinstatement with all the arrears of pay, allowances and increments, notwithstanding the impugned termination order. It was alleged that Gurdev Singh plaintiff was appointed as a Peon in the year 1978 and he was confirmed by the Municipality, Bathinda on 19.9.1980. Vide letter No. 466/Octroi dated 8.3.1984 a charge sheet was levelled against the plaintiff to which he submitted his reply. However, the committee terminated the services of the plaintiff vide resolution No. 596 dated 26.12.1984. The said order was stayed by the Director Local Government Punjab, but later on the order was vacated and the Executive Officer Municipal Committee, Bathinda terminated the services of the plaintiff vide office order No. 14 dated 20.1.1986. It was alleged that no enquiry against the charges mentioned in the charge sheet was conducted and no show cause notice/personal hearing was afforded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had submitted his arrival report alongwith the application for allowing him to join the duty in pursuance of the stay order granted by the Director -Local Govt. Punjab, Chandigarh, but he was not allowed to join his duties. It was alleged that the plaintiff has been discharged from the service in violation of Section 35 of the Punjab Municipal Act. The termination order had been communicated to the plaintiff on 20.1.1986, but it had been made effective from 19.2.1984 which was illegal. The suit was contested by the appellants. It was alleged that the Director Local Bodies, Punjab, Chandigarh was a necessary party. The plaintiff had not filed any appeal against the order of his termination before the competent authority and as such he was not entitled to file the present suit. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had no locus -standi to file the suit. On merits, it was alleged that the order of termination was legal, correct and according to the rules. The plaintiff was served with a registered notice dated 28.5.1984 to join his duty within 7 days, but he failed to report for duty. Office order dated 20.1.1986 was correctly issued when the stay was vacated by the Director Local Bodies, Punjab, Chandigarh.

(2.) ON completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues: - -

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff has got no locus -standi to file the suit? OPD