R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) THIS regular second appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.8.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1996 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, who decreed the suit of the plaintiff -respondent Head Constable Balwinder Singh.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Balwinder Singh plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 5.7.1995 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAP Jalandhar Cantt, whereby his appeal was dismissed and in which the order dated 31.8.1994 passed by the Commandant 13th Battalion, PAP Jalandhar Cantt dismissing him from service, creating the period from 8.2.1994 to 16.3.1994 and from 19.4.1994 to 24.4.1994 of his alleged absence as non -duty and further taking the period of suspension as period of suspension for all purposes, has merged, is illegal, null and void, against the provisions of service rules and rules of natural justice and is not binding on the plaintiff and he continues to serve the department as Head Constable as before 31.8.1994 with all consequential relief. 2. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that the said orders being illegal, null and void are not binding upon him and that he continued to serve as Head Constable. According to the plaintiff, he was appointed as Constable in the Police Department on 27.7.1981, but he was promoted as Head Constable in June 1990. He suddenly fell ill on 8.2.1994 and after informing the Incharge Officer, he went to his village for treatment and enquiry was conducted against him on the allegations that the plaintiff remained absent from duty. The Inquiry Officer found him guilty and on the report of the Inquiry Officer he was dismissed from service on 31.8.1994. He filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police which was also dismissed on 5.7.1995. According to the plaintiff, these orders are illegal as the order of dismissal has been passed by an authority below the rank of Inspector General of Police who was the promoting authority of the plaintiff as Head Constable. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant -State of Punjab. They contested the suit and took preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the suit. Other allegations of the plaintiff were denied and it was alleged that notice under Section 80 CPC was not legal and valid. On merits they admitted that the plaintiff was recruited as a constable and was promoted as Head Constable in June, 1990.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether a legal and valid notice under Section 80 C.P.C. was served before institution of the present suit ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 4. Whether the suit lies within the jurisdiction of this Court ? OPP;