- (1.) Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 22/3/1994 made by the division bench of the Delhi High court in RFA (OS) No. 27 of 1994. The admitted facts are that the respondent came to be appointed on 7/3/1956 as Section Officer in the central Public Works Department. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer discovered on 6/10/1956 that he had obtained the appointment on producing false certificates. Consequently, a report was laid under S. 420, 468 and 127, Indian Penal Code and he was kept under suspension. Independent thereof, exercising the power under Rule 5 of the central government Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949, his services were terminated by order dated 10/9/1957. The respondent after his acquittal by the criminal court laid the suit in forma paupers on 13/8/1965 seeking declaration that the termination of his service was wrong, unconstitutional, that he should be deemed to have continued in service and that he was entitled to Rs. 84,000. 00 byway of salary and damages by way of expenses incurred by him to defend the criminal cases etc. The trial Judge (Single Judge of the High court) by his judgment dated 22/3/1994, though held that the termination order was unconstitutional, since he was terminated without compliance of Article 311 (2 of the Constitution, dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. On appeal, the division bench held that the suit was not barred by limitation for the reason that he had laid the suit after the rejection of his application for reinstatement and consequent to the acquittal by the criminal court on 8/5/19644 and that, therefore, it was within limitation. The suit was decreed.
(3.) Ms Binu Tamta, the learned counsel for the Union of India, contended that the division bench has committed grievous error of law in decreeing the suit. According to the learned counsel, cause of action for the suit had arisen on 10/9/1957; the limitation for the declaration of the suit is 3 years from the date of the dismissal. Since the suit was filed on 13/8/1965, it was clearly barred by limitation. In support thereof she placed reliance on a decision of this court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh. The learned counsel also contended that this is not a case of dismissal on the basis of misconduct and criminal charge but is independent thereof and that, therefore, the acquittal does not furnish any cause of action to lay the suit as emphasised by the respondent-plaintiff. The High court was wrong in laying emphasis in that behalf.;