AJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dated 14th of September, 1993 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on 14.1.1991 was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the impugned order whereby his services as driver in Punjab Roadways were terminated by General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur, was illegal and ultra vires. According to the plaintiff, he has rendered 12 years' service prior to the impugned order and he fell ill prior to 11.1.1982, and was confined to bed. The plaintiff was allowed to avail leave. Thereafter, he informed the department about his illness from time to time and also informed that he was not in a position to resume his duties. It is further alleged that he was not intimated about the fate of his leave application and that vide impugned order passed by the General Manager services of the plaintiff were terminated with retrospective effect. It was further pleaded that the termination order was passed without following the procedure laid down under Rules 8 and 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules); that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the plaintiff before passing the impugned order and that the said order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that the suit was time barred and that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit. It was, however, admitted that the plaintiff was working as a driver in Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur and was governed by the provisions of Rules and that his services were terminated vide impugned order dated 3.2.1983. According to the defendants, the impugned order was legal and valid and was passed in accordance with the provisions of law and principles of natural justice. It was denied that the plaintiff filed any application for grant of leave. Rather it was pleaded that the plaintiff wilfully absented from duty despite the fact that a notice was published in the newspaper.