PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER KHURANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the facts are that Subhash Chander Khurana was placed under suspension by the Chief Engineer (P. & M.M.), Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, - -vide order dated 29th December, 1981, on receipt of a confidential report from Assistant Executive Engineer (Flying Squad) that he had been tampering at site the spot Welding and M&T seals originally fixed in the M.E. Laboratory with the object of committing/aiding theft of electricity. The Respondent instituted a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Muktsar against the order of suspension. During the pendency of the suit the Respondent was reinstated on 15th July, 1982, subject to the result of the enquiry. His posting order was also issued. However, the suit was partly decreed on 29th October, 1983 for declaration to the effect that the Plaintiff stood reinstated with effect from 29th January, 1982, instead of 15th July, 1982 subject to the result of the enquiry pending against him. It was further directed that the Board should complete the enquiry with 90 days.

(2.) THE Board could not complete the enquiry within the said period and, therefore, an application was moved on its behalf before the Subordinate Judge, Muktsar for extension of three months time to complete enquiry. The application has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, - -vide impugned order on the ground that the same could not be allowed under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Board has come up in revision against the order of the Subordinate Judge to this Court.

(3.) I have duly considered the argument and find force in it. The facts of the present case are not distorted. The Respondent had been suspended, - -vide order dated 29th December, 1981. He instituted a suit on 3rd March, 1982. for declaration that the order of suspension was illegal, void and ineffective. He also prayed that the Board be directed to issue order of his posting. During the pendency of the suit he was reinstated by the Board on 15th July, 1982. The suit was decided by the Court on 29th October, 1983 in which it was ordered that he stood reinstated with effect from 29th January, 1982 instead of 15th July, 1982, but that would be subject to the result of the enquiry pending against him. It was further directed that the Board would complete the enquiry within 90 days. It is not disputed that the Respondent had not claimed in the suit that the enquiry should be completed within a particular period. It is also noteworthy that it was not provided in the decree or judgment as to what would be the effect if the enquiry was not completed within the said period. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the said direction was the essence of the decree. It is well -settled that if any time is fixed for performance of some act, which is not the essence of the decree, the Court has got the power under Section 148 to extend time for the performance thereof. Reference in this regard may be made to a Division Bench judgment of Pepsu High Court in Nanha v. Baroo and Ors., AIR 1952 Pepsu 88 and Sarat Chandra Patro v. Harmingha Patro and Ors. : AIR 1976 Ori 12. In the former case the Judicial Committee had given the Appellants six months time to deposit the amount and ordered that they could get the possession of the land only if the deposit was made. The judgment was silent as regards the effect of Appellants' failure to deposit the amount. It was held by Teja Singh, C.J., speaking for the Bench: