K.C. Puri, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this regular second appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2009 passed by Sh. Kewal Krishan Garg, District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the appeal preferred by the Defendant -Appellants, against the judgment and decree dated 1.8.2007, passed by Sh Sumeet Ghai, PCS, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, was partly accepted.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, Hari Ram, Conductor, of Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh, filed suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 5.12.2002 and order dated 13.8.2003 are illegal, void, arbitrary, against the rules and also against the principles of natural justice. Mandatory injunction was also sought to release the amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. It is alleged that the above said two orders dated 5.12.2002 and 13.8.2003, are illegal, void, arbitrary and against the rules, whereby pay of the Plaintiff for suspension period about the subsistence allowance was denied. The Plaintiff claimed the release of said amount alongwith interest. It is pleaded that he was suspended vide order dated 21.8.2000 and subsequently, he was charge sheeted. Plaintiff filed reply to the charge sheet. Departmental enquiry was ordered, which was not conducted as per rules and as per order dated 5.12.2002, punishment order was passed, which was upheld vide order dated 13.8.2003. Charge sheet was vague and based on false allegations and even no statement of passengers was recorded during the enquiry. On put to notice, Defendants filed written statement, taking preliminary objections that suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties. It is pleaded that no legal notice under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure was served. However, it is admitted that Plaintiff was charge sheeted on 30.8.2000 where allegations of fraud were leveled against the Plaintiff. It is pleaded that order dated 5.12.2002 and order dated 13.8.2003 were legal and valid and have been passed by the competent authority in accordance with law, after affording full opportunity to the Plaintiff.
(3.) REPLICATION was not filed. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: (i) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration as prayed for ? OPP (ii) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to seek decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP (iii) Whether suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties, if so, to what effect? OPD (iv) Whether suit is bad for want of legal notice Under Section 80 CPC? OPD (v) Relief.;