- (1.) Having been non-suited, in the suit for declaration by both the learned courts below, by recording their concurrent findings of facts, unsuccessful plaintiff has approached this Court, by way of instant regular second appeal. Briefly put, facts of the case as recorded by the learned appellate court are that plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that order bearing No. 175 dated 13.08.2001 passed by defendant No. 2, whereby one annual grade increment of the plaintiff was stopped with cumulative effect and period of suspension was treated as the leave of the kind due was illegal, null and void. Having been served in the suit, defendants appeared and filed their written statement raising more than one preliminary submissions. Averments taken by the plaintiffs were denied. After completion of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether order bearing No. 175 dated 13.08.2001, Endst. No. 2900/13 issued by defendant No. 2 and further order bearing No. 150 dated 18.07.2003 Endst No. 115223/115240 dated 18.07.2003 are illegal, void, arbitrary, against rules and not binding upon the plaintiff? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration for the reason mentioned in the plaint? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for all arrears of increments and full pay for the suspension period along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum? OPP 4. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 5. Whether plaintiff has infringed the regulations No. 7 & and 8 of employees conduct regulation, 1971 as alleged? OPD 6. Relief.
(2.) To substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove his case. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed with costs, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved plaintiff filed appeal which was also dismissed by the learned first appellate court, vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2011. Hence, the second appeal.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the punishment order passed against the appellant was illegal on the basis of it. Plaintiff did not violate any rule or regulation including regulation 7 and 8 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees Conduct Regulations, 1971. He further submits that plaintiff has approached the Court with cogent and convincing evidence which was sufficient to decree his suit. However, since the learned Courts below have misdirected themselves, while passing their respective impugned judgments, the same were not sustainable in law. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees, by allowing the present appeal.;