LAXMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 1980 passed by the Addl. District Judge, No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial court') in Civil Case No.92/74 (48/64), whereby the trial court had dismissed the suit of the appellant-original plaintiff seeking declaration that his termination from services was illegal and seeking arrears of salary. The appeal was filed by the appellant Laxman Singh son of Th.Man Singh (original-plaintiff), however, he died during the pendency of appeal and his heirs have been permitted to be brought on record for pursuing the appeal.

(2.) The facts in nutshell giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff was working on the substantive post of Deputy Superintendent of Police(Wireless), Jaipur and was suspended from service vide Govt. Order dated 27th August,1955. He was served with the chargesheet dated 2nd November, 1955 for the alleged irregularity in the purchase of wireless equipments and the departmental inquiry was also initiated by the respondent-department. Thereafter another chargesheet dated 4th January,1957 was also served upon the plaintiff with regard to the repairs and additions to Hazuri Topkhana Building and a separate inquiry was also conducted against the plaintiff. In both the inquiries, the plaintiff was found guilty and the department after giving show cause notice to the plaintiff had dismissed him from services vide order dated 3rd October,1958, which was served on the plaintiff on 4th October,1958. The plaintiff thereafter filed review petition to the Governor on 2nd April,1959, which came to be rejected on 29th August, 1959. The plaintiff thereafter served the notice under section 80 of CPC to the respondent (original defendant) on 5th October,1964 and thereafter filed the suit on 7th December, 1964. The trial court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31st March, 1980 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant/plaintiff had filed the present appeal.

(3.) It has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. JP Goyal for the appellant that the trial court had committed an error apparent on the face of record in holding that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by law of limitation. Pressing into service section 30 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Mr. Goyal submitted that the cause of action having arisen in 1959, the provisions of old Limitation Act of 1908 would apply, wherein period of 6 years was prescribed in the residuary Article 120. Learned counsel Mr. Goyal further submitted that the trial court had also committed a error in not appreciating that the departmental inquiries conducted against the plaintiff were in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the termination of services was required to be held illegal. Mr. Goyal relying upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And another, 1999 AIR(SC) 1416, submitted that the plaintiff having been acquitted in the criminal proceedings, departmental proceedings against him were also required to be dropped by the respondent-defendant.