PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS Vs. SAWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-Sawinder Singh filed a suit for declaration. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 21.7.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge,Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants.

(2.) The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, read as under:- "œ 2. In nut shell, the case of the plaintiff is that he was appointed as Warden and posted at Central Jail, Amritsar, on 9.10.1992 and during his service, his work and conduct remained satisfactory, but on 11.4.1994, he was involved in false criminal case u/secs.107/151 Cr.P.C. and was acquitted by the Court of Executive Magistrate, Amritsar and,thereafter, he joined the duties in May,1994, but the department did not release his salary for the months of April and May,1994. On 16.9.1996, he was again placed under suspension on the allegations that he was found keeping in his possession capsules while on duty and,thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated and, ultimately, he was acquitted by the Inquiry Officer on 29.8.1997 but despite that the department has not released his salary. Notice u/sec.80 CPC was served upon the defendants, but of no avail and,ultimately, the suit was filed.

(3.) On notice, written statement was filed by the defendants taking preliminary objections regarding cause of action, legality of the notice u/s 80 CPC and concealment of facts. On merits, the appointment of plaintiff was admitted. However, it was submitted that he was found on 7.4.1994 entering the residence of Jail Superintendent under influence of liquor and quarrelled with the Sentry. Thereafter, he absented willfully from duty till 3.6.1994 and was charge-sheeted under Rule 8 of Pb.Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules and Inquiry was initiated,wherein, punishment was inflicted to stop one increment without future effect. Then, he was placed under suspension on 16.9.1996, as he was found keeping in his possession Sodinol Capsules and Inquiry was conducted, but Inquiry Officer on 21.8.1997 obtained an application, on the basis of which, he passed order on 29.8.1997 warning the plaintiff and treating the period of suspension as leave of kind due. Finally, it was submitted that the suit be dismissed. Separate written statement was also filed by defendant No.4 on similar grounds. " On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration as prayed for OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the mandatory injunction as prayed for OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit OPD 4. What is the effect of the notice u/sec. 80 CPC OPD 5.Relief."