Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) THE epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that M.L. Sachdeva appellant -plaintiff (for brevity "the plaintiff') was posted as Senior Accounts Officer in the office of Chief Auditor, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short "defendant No. 1 -Nigam"). Two criminal cases, bearing FIR Nos. 181 and 182 dated 21.4.1990 were registered against him alongwith his other co -accused, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 409, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 -B and 210 IPC etc. by the police of Police Station Sadar Panipat. He was convicted and sentenced by the Court of ACJM, by virtue of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.2.2004. The criminal appeals filed by him were stated to be pending.
(2.) THE case set up by the plaintiff, in brief in so far as relevant, was that the Managing Director of defendant No. 1 -Nigam has passed the order dated 21.5.2004 (Ex. P1), whereby, he has been dismissed from service. The plaintiff has challenged the dismissal order, being null, void, against the mandatory provisions of The Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1990 (hereinafter to be referred as "the relevant Rules") and principles of natural justice. It was claimed that defendant No. 1 -Nigam also did not pay the salary to the plaintiff after 13.2.2004 despite repeated requests. He asked the defendant No. 1 -Nigam to admit his claim and to release his salary, but in vain, which necessitated him to file the suit. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of declaration, challenging the impugned indicated dismissal order (Ex. P1) passed by defendant No. 1 -Nigam, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from implementing the order (Ex. P1) and from recovering any amount from him in the manner, described hereinbefore. The defendants contested the suit and filed their written statement, inter -alia pleading certain preliminary objections -of, maintainability of the suit, suppression of material facts, estoppel, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. On merits, it was claimed that the services of the plaintiff were rightly terminated, in view of his conviction of criminal offences involving his moral turpitude. It was explained that on 14.6.2004, plaintiff un -authorizedly entered in the office of the Nigam during lunch hours, picked up attendance register and marked his presence with effect from 24.5.2004 to 14.6.2004. This matter was also reported to the police, where another criminal case, vide FIR No. 19 dated 24.6.2004 was registered against the plaintiff by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) IN the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for proper adjudication of the case: - 1. Whether the order No. 195/SE/Admn. dated 21.5.04 passed by the Managing Director of defendant No. 1 is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside ?OPP 2. Whether the memo No. CAO/P&A/117, dated 9.6.2004 issued by the defendant No. 2 vide which he has asked to take action against the plaintiff for effecting recovery of an amount of Rs. 92548/ - is illegal, null and Void and is liable to be set aside ?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction ?OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable ?OPD;