- (1.) It is defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent, was decreed.
(2.) Briefly put, facts of the case, as recorded by the learned first appellate court in para 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that the plaintiff was posted as a conductor in Punjab Roadways Ferozepur Depot. Plaintiff was charge-sheeted on a number of allegations and after holding an enquiry, Punishing Authority passed orders under challenge dated 28.7.1976, 2.9.1977 and 30.8.1987 whereby the previous service of the plaintiff was forfeited and he was appointed as a new entrant in the service. Plaintiff has challenged these orders on the ground that the Punishing Authority had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders and as such these orders are void ab-initio/illegal.
(3.) Suit was contested by the defendant and the defendant had pleaded in the written statement that the orders under challenge are legal and valid and are according to the provision of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The suit is barred by law of limitation and the plaintiff did not serve notice upon the defendant before the institution of the suit as contemplated under Section 88 C.P.C. On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the orders dated 28.7.1976, 2.9.1977 and 30.8.1987 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepore forfeiting the services of the plaintiff are illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the plaint OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff served notice under Section 90 CPC on the defendant before filing the suit OPP 3. Whether the suit is barred by time OPD 4. Relief.";