KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal Plaintiff was initially appointed as Gram Sewak on 16.4.1952 in the erstwhile State of Pepsu. He was promoted to the post of Social Education and Panchayat Officer on 8.9.1964. On 29.10.1971 on account of his arrest in case, FIR No. 23/71 Under Section 109, IPC, he was placed under suspension. On 27.12.1974, he was convicted Under Section 409 read with Section 109, IPC. As a result of conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and further directed to pay fine. Vide order dated 24.5.1977 issued vide Endst. No. DFA -2 -77/37805 -7 dated 7.6.1977 the plaintiff was dismissed from service. Plaintiff challenged the order of dismissal by filing suit in May, 1988 on the ground of order being illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and authority, penal in character, ultra -vires of principles of natural justice, against the service rules and regulations governing the service of the plaintiff. On contest, the trial Court decreed the suit and on appeal by the State, the order of the trial Court was set aside and in consequence thereof suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Plaintiff has come in second appeal.

(2.) MR . J.S. Wasu, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the appellant has contended that the order of the first appellate Court cannot be maintained because the order of dismissal against the appellant was passed only on the basis of conviction and not on the basis of conduct leading to his conviction. He has further contended that the order of dismissal was passed on 24.5.1977 but with effect from the date of his conviction, i.e. 27.12.1974. He contended that the order dismissing the appellant from service with retrospective effect is illegal. As regards the limitation, he contended that the appellant came to know about the order only in the year 1988 and the suit was filed within three years from the date of coming to know of the order and thus, finding of the first appellate Court in this regard cannot be sustained.

(3.) FACED with this situation, counsel contended that the Punishing Authority while exercising powers under rule 13(i) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 has not acted fairly and justly and has awarded the extreme penalty of dismissal from service, whereas the case of the petitioner was not one of dismissal. In support of this contention, reference was made to judgment of Supreme Court in Shankar Dass v. Union of India and Anr.and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Om Parkash v. The Director Postal Services (Posts and Telegraphs Deptt.) Punjab Circle, Ambala and Ors. .