- (1.) Present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 26.05.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, as well as, against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1993 passed by learned Sub Judge II Class, Gurdaspur, whereby suit of the respondent-plaintiff is decreed to the effect that the dismissal order dated 21.01.1988 and order dated 24.06.1988 are illegal, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service from the date of his dismissal. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that dismissal order dated 21.01.1988 of the plaintiff-respondent and rejection of appeal vide order dated 24.06.1988 are illegal, unjustified, cryptic, unconstitutional, unacceptable, discriminative, against the principles of natural justice, police rules and against the well settled law and norms of service rules, regulations and are non-speaking. It was further prayed that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service from the date of his dismissal and entitled to all back emoluments. The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.12.1993, after appreciating the evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent to the effect that the dismissal order dated 21.01.1988 passed by defendant No. 4 and order dated 24.06.1988 passed by defendant No. 3 are illegal, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and the plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement with continuity in service from the date of his dismissal and entitled to all back emoluments as if the impugned orders had never been passed. Against the said judgment and decree, the defendants-appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, which was partly allowed vide judgment and decree dated 26.05.1997, the decree of the learned Trial Court was modified and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration was partly decreed holding that the order of dismissal dated 21.01.1988 was illegal, null and void. But the plaintiff-respondent was not held entitled to any consequential relief of service including salary from the date of dismissal till he joined because he remained absent. Hence, this regular second appeal by the State.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
(3.) At the admission stage on 02.04.1998, the following substantial question of law was framed: Whether the Court can interfere with the punishment imposed merely on the ground that the plaintiff has put in service for 25 years.;