S.S. Grewal, J. - (1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th of May, 1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff -appellant against the order of dismissal of his suit by the Senior Sub -Judge, Gurdaspur dated 21st of March, 1991 was dismissed.
(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant had filed suit for declaration to the effect that the impugned order No. 11096 -11102/AC -2 dated 16.10.1987 passed by defendant respondent No.2 rejecting the request for withdrawal of notice for voluntary retirement sought by the plaintiff was illegal and liable to be set aside. It was pleaded that vide application dated 31st July, 1987 the plaintiff -appellant, who was posted as Sub -Inspector with Punjab Armed Police had sought voluntary retirement by giving three months notice. However, before the expiry of the period of the said notice, the plaintiff -appellant made a written request to the defendant -respondents for withdrawal of his notice for voluntary retirement. Despite this the plaintiff was served with the impugned order dated 16.10.1987. Thus the plaintiff was illegally retired from service with effect from 31.10.1987 without proper consideration of his request for withdrawal of his notice for voluntary retirement. The order passed by the defendant -respondents was illegal, unlawful, ultravires, unconstitutional, null and void on the following grounds : - (a) The impugned order dated 16.10.1987 has been passed in utter disregard and gross violation of mandatory provisions of statutory law. (b) He has not been given reasonable opportunity to explain his conduct, rather he has been condemned unheard. (c) He had applied for withdrawal of his notice of voluntary retirement before the expiry of stipulated period of three months. He was oft effective duty when he had applied for the said withdrawal. His request was rejected on 26.10.1987 vide impugned order which was prior to the effective date of retirement i.e. 31.10.1987. (d) He has not been assigned any reason as to why his request for said withdrawal is being rejected. (e) The impugned order is cryptic and punitive in nature. (f) The impugned order has been passed with mala -fide intention and ulterior motive on the part of certain officials with a sole view to harm his interest; (g) The impugned order is non -speaking; (h) He had earlier submitted a notice for voluntary retirement as certain stipulation and condition with regard to his work and conduct and had asked for an enquiry. The said conditions were never got fulfilled by the defendants. The said notice cannot be treated as operative suo -moto by the defendants without consulting him. The action of the defendants is illegal; (i) The impugned order is ex -facie defective, dishonest and no order in the eyes of law. It is void ab initio and is liable to be quashed. The defendant -respondents in the written statement pleaded that the impugned order was legal and valid. Preliminary objections were raised that the Civil Court at Gurdaspur has no jurisdiction to try the present suit; that the suit is not maintainable in the present form and that notice Under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was invalid and it was prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: - 1. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the suit? O.P.D. 2. Whether the suit is bad for non -service of valid notice u/s 80, C.P.C.? O.P.D. 3. Whether the order of defendant No. 2 passed on 16.101987 against the plaintiff is void, illegal against natural justice and liable to be set aside? O.P.P. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? O.P.D.;