SABINA, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF had filed a suit for declaration challenging order dated 8.4.1988.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was appointed as a Driver with Defendants (Corporation) on 25.3.1983. On 23.11.1987, plaintiff was on duty with Bus No. 3655 enroute Amritsar to Kapurthala. THE bus went out of order and it was sent to a private shop for repair at the instance of Adda Incharge. THE repair could not be completed and the mechanic of the private repair shop left the pressure gauge pipe open. On 24.11.1987, Harinder Singh, Fitter came at 10.00 a.m. and was informed about the break down of the bus. Without verifying the facts, Depot Manager in a malafide manner issued charge-sheet dated 15.1.1988 at the home address of the plaintiff. Plaintiff was placed under suspension. Plaintiff submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. THE Punishing Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Plaintiff was, however, denied the assistance of the co-workers during the inquiry proceedings. Signatures of the plaintiff were taken on blank papers without recording the statements of witnesses in his presence. A show cause notice dated 25.1.1988 was served on the plaintiff and the same was not accompanied with the copy of the inquiry report. THE cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff on 8.4.1988 and then he filed an appeal on 5.5.1989 which had not been decided till date. Defendants, in their written statement, admitted the appointment of the plaintiff with the Defendants as a Driver. THE other contents of the plaint were denied. It was averred that the plaintiff had intentionally opened the pressure pipe. THE Fitter found the pipe open when he inspected the bus on 24.11.1987. THE pipe was set right and the Driver was directed to take the bus to the Bus Stand but the plaintiff continued making excuses. THE Depot Manager issued the charge-sheet as per the complaint of the Adda Incharge. THE charge-sheet was issued on 30.11.1987 but the plaintiff had failed to reply the said charge-sheet. THE Traffic Manager was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. During Inquiry proceedings, plaintiff was provided the services of the co-workers but he admitted all the charges levelled against him. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit?OPD 3.Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?OPD 4.Relief". The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.1992 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.1996. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. The inquiry proceedings had been conducted as per rules.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was within limitation. The impugned order had been passed in violation of the rules. The substantial question of law that arises in this appeal is as to whether the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are illegal and are against the settled principles of law. Plaintiff had filed the suit challenging his termination order dated 8.4.1988 on 20.4.1990. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff was within the period of limitation.;