STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BABU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff -respondent who is a Head Constable was posted as Cashier in the Police Lines at Faridkot. He is alleged to have misappropriated some cash in his custody and was accordingly charge -sheeted. After a regular departmental enquiry he was served with a show cause notice dated 14.10.1982 proposing to remove him from service. The reply filed by him to the show cause notice was not found satisfactory and, therefore, the Superintendent of Police, as per his order dated 11.3.1983 imposed a punishment of forfeiture of two years of approved service. This order was challenged by filing a suit claiming a declaration that it was null and void on the ground that the inquiry conducted was in violation of the principles of natural justice and that the plaintiff had not been supplied with a copy of the report of the preliminary enquiry and that the departmental instructions had been flagrantly violated. The suit was filed on 22.5.1986. The State of Punjab contested the suit and denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable and that the same was barred by time. It was further pleaded that the order forfeiting two years' ser vice of the plaintiff was passed by the competent authority after holding a regular departmental enquiry in which he was afforded full opportunity to defend himself and that the charge levelled against the plaintiff stood proved.

(2.) The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues : -

(3.) On a consideration of the entire evidence led by the parties, the Courts below came to the conclusion that the impugned order was illegal and null and void. It was held that the enquiry was initiated against the plaintiff in October, 1982, whereas he had remained cashier from October, 1976, to September, 1977 and this according to the Courts below was in violation of Rules 23 and 24 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeals) Rules. Since the enquiry was not completed within six months of the alleged occurrence, the same stood vitiated. A copy of the report of the preliminary enquiry which was held by the department had not been supplied to the plaintiff and on this account also the enquiry was held to be illegal. Since the courts below found that the impugned order was null and void they decided the issue of limitation in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. State as according to them there was no period of limitation prescribed for challenging an order which was null and void. The present second appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.