- (1.) Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the Sub Judge-Ist Class, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 18.8.1994. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 25.1.2002. Hence, the present appeal by the Plaintiff.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Sub Judge, 1st Class Jalandhar, in para Nos. 2 and 3 of impugned judgment, are as under: 2. Plaintiff was working as a Constable in the Jalandhar District and his work and conduct was satisfactory. As the Plaintiff was a permanent employee of the Defendants as such he was entitled to the protection of Punjab Police Rules 1934 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Services of the Plaintiff were terminated by the order of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar which is illegal (not legible) charge sheet was served upon the Plaintiff and neither any inquiry was conducted nor any show cause notice was given to the Plaintiff. Enquiry was dispensed without relying upon any material on record neither any attempt to summon witness was made by Defendant nor any reason for dispensing with the Enquiry was given by the Defendants and the impugned order was passed without complying with the provisions of 16.24 and 16.38 of Police Rules. The Punishing Authority also violated the provision of Section 16.19 of Police Rules and before passing the impugned order no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff was acquitted by the court of Shri S.K. Chopra Additional Judge, designated Court Nabha and in pursuance of judgment of Shri S K Chopra Plaintiff served the Defendants with a legal notice under Section 80 Code of Code of Civil Procedure but the Defendants did not bother about the notice and ultimately aggrieved against the act of the Defendants the Plaintiff filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana as their lordships directed the Defendants that appeal of the Plaintiff pending before the Deputy Inspector General of Police should be disposed of within 6 months and in pursuance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court Defendant No. 3 passed an order dated 25.7.91 but the same is illegal because it had been passed in contravention of directions of Hon'ble High Court. The impugned order is non speaking and was passed with mala fide intention and no personal hearing was given to the Plaintiff before passing the impugned order. The Plaintiff preferred the writ petition in Hon'ble High Court against the impugned order but the same was dismissed because it involved a disputed question of facts and the present suit was filed with permission of the High Court and prayed that order dated 17.8.87 and 25.7.91 be set aside and the Plaintiff shall be reinstated. 3. The Defendants appeared and filed w/s taking preliminary objections that suit of the Plaintiff is barred by law of limitation, the same is not maintainable as it is against the rules of res judicata and that no legal and valid notice under Section 80 Code of Code of Civil Procedure was served upon the Defendants. On merits the Defendants replied that the Plaintiff was associating with anti social and anti national elements and that he was dismissed by Defendant No. 3 by virtue of powers under Rule 16.1 of Pb. Police Rules read with Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution of India. It was admitted by Defendants that no charge sheet was issued to the Plaintiff nor any enquiry was conducted against the Plaintiff with a further assertion that it was not reasonably practical to give the Plaintiff an opportunity of showing cause before his removal from the service. It was also not reasonable practical to hold a Enquiry in the manner provided under Rule 16.24 of Pb. Police Rules for the reasons recorded in order dated 17.8.87. It was admitted by the Defendants that no witness was summoned before passing the impugned order or before dispensing with the enquiry and that as the punishing authority was satisfied that circumstances were such that it was not reasonably practical to hold an Enquiry in the manner provided under Rule 16.24 of Punjab Police Rules. Hence the impugned order is lawful and that the Plaintiff was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt because some Pws failed to appear in the Court and that on receiving direction from Hon'ble High Court, Defendant No. 2 checked its office record and it was found that no representation of the Plaintiff was pending and accordingly order dated 25.7.94 was passed by the DIG and that order of DIG is legal and valid because representation of Plaintiff was decided according to rules and a speaking order was passed and the order of Hon'ble High Court nowhere specified that the delay occurred on the part of Plaintiff has been considered and that the writ petition filed by the Plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court was withdrawn as the Plaintiff (not legible) the same fate as that of C Ashwani Kumar who was dismissed from service on similar grounds and whose writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 27.7.94 and that suit of the Plaintiff having on merits (not legible).
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: (1) Whether the impugned order dated 17.8.87 and (not legible) passed by the Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. respectively are illegal and void?OPP (2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for?OPP (3) Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by law of limitation?OPD (4) Whether the suit of the Plaintiff is not within the present form?OPD (5) Whether the legal and valid notice Under Section 80 Code of Code of Civil Procedure was served by the Plaintiff on the Defendants? (6) Relief.;