STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAM PARTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Sangrur dated 20th May, 1985 whereby the question of limitation has been decided in favour of plaintiff respondent and the case has been sent back to the trial Court for decision on merits.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to the effect that the entire disciplinary proceedings conducted against him so far by the defendant-State were null, void and without jurisdiction as also ineffective qua his right as the office order dated 26th August, 1975 issued by the District Education Officer is unenforceable against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order dated 26th August, 1975 on 1st December, 1975 as provided under rule 17 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. It was vide order dated 16th March, 1984 that the said appeal was dismissed as barred by time. The plaintiff filed the present suit on 21st May, 1984 claiming limitation from the order dated on 16th March, 1984. The preliminary issue was framed as to the limitation regarding the filing of the suit. The trial Court found that the suit was barred by time as the same was filed beyond the period of 3 years from the date of cause of action i.e. 26th August, 1975 and consequently, rejected the plaint vide order dated 20th May, 1985. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 16th March, 1984 when his appeal was dismissed and, therefore, the same having been filed within 3 years thereof as provided by Article 113 of Limitation Act, the suit was within time. As a result of that finding, the case was remitted to the trial Court for decision on merits. Dissatisfied with the same, the State of Punjab has filed this appeal in this Court.

(3.) The only argument raised on behalf of the appellant is that since the appeal was filed beyond time and was dismissed as such, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim limitation from the order dated 16th March, 1984 dismissing his appeal as barred by time. According to the learned counsel, the matter would have been different if the appeal was dismissed on merits and not as barred by time. Argument was also raised that when the limitation was involved, the merits could not be gone into. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent submitted that under rule 17 of the Rules ibid, no appeal preferred could be entertained unless it was preferred within a period of 45 days from the date on which a copy of the order appealed against is delivered. There is a proviso to the said rule which contemplates that the appellate authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. Thus argued the learned counsel in the present case, the appeal was duly entertained even the operation of the impugned order dated 26th August, 1975 remained stayed meanwhile. It is surprising that the said appeal was dismissed as barred by time after more than 8 years i.e. on 16th March, 1984. According to the learned counsel, the earlier order dated 26th August, 1975 merged in the order in appeal passed on 16th March, 1984 and, therefore, the suit filed on 21st May, 1984 was within time. In support of this contention he referred to Sohan Singh v. State of Punjab and another,1981 2 ILR(P&H) 71 and unreported judgment delivered by me in The Cantonment Board, Ambala through the Cantonment Executive Officer, Ambala v. Berhma Nand son of Shri Girdhari Lal, Driver Cantonment Board resident of Ambala Cantt,1980 2 ILR(P&H) 314, S.A.O. No. 35 of 1939 decided on 21st January, 1980.