- (1.) C.M. No. 16129-CII of 2005 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 28 days in refiling the revision petition is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. C.M. No. 16130-CII of 2005 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of nine days' delay in filing the appeal. Notice of this application was issued to the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the application which is supported by an affidavit, the delay of nine days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. C.R. No. 4190 of 2005 The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the orders dated 25.2.2000 and 7.8.2000 passed by the respondents are illegal, void and not binding and sought permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from recovering Rs. 70,446/- from the salary of the plaintiff.
(2.) The facts as narrated in the plaint are that the plaintiff was appointed on 30.12.1963 in the Agriculture Department and is working as Agriculture Information Officer since 1990. It was pleaded that vide order dated 3.11.1998 of Joint Director Agriculture (CC) for Director of Agriculture, Punjab allotted Gypsy No. CH-01-G-0717 to AIO and OSD (Plg) together and was to be used by both of them with mutual consent and the plaintiff being senior officer was made officer-in-charge of the vehicle and the said vehicle was to be parked at his house. It was further pleaded that on the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd of April, 1999, the said Gypsy was stolen from the residence of the plaintiff and a complaint in this regard was lodged with the police on 23.4.1999 and the Joint Director was also informed vide letter of even date. It was further pleaded that although the plaintiff informed the Incharge Police Post Sector-10, Panchkula on 23.4.1999 in the morning about the theft of Gypsy but no FIR was lodged and the plaintiff got registered the FIR on 26.4.1999 in Police Station, Sector-5, Panchkula. Vide letter dated 26.4.1999, Shri Daljit Singh, PCS (Administration), Directorate of Agriculture, Punjab was appointed as Inquiry Officer in the matter of theft of Gypsy. On 19.5.1999, the Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of AIO and OSD (Plg). It was further pleaded that neither the plaintiff was allowed to be present at the time of recording of the aforesaid statements nor any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and the copy of the enquiry report was given. A charge-sheet dated 11.11.1999 was issued by the Joint Secretary, Punjab Government, Department of Agriculture under Rule 8 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules for not keeping the vehicle in a safe place and for causing a loss of Rs. one lac to the Government. The plaintiff gave reply to the charge-sheet on 3.1.2000. Defendant No. 1 passed the order dated 25.2.2000 stating therein that the cost of the Gypsy is to be recovered from the plaintiff till the Gypsy is traced out. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff vide letter dated 28.5.2000 represented to defendant No. 1 for reconsideration of the order dated 25.2.2000 but he was not given any personal hearing and vide order dated 7.8.2000, order of recovery of Rs. 70,446/- from the plaintiff until the vehicle is traced out was passed by defendant No. 2.
(3.) Upon notice, the defendants filed written statement by taking various preliminary objections and the main preliminary objection was that no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served upon the respondents before filing the suit. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was given full opportunity by the Inquiry Officer to explain his position and the orders dated 25.2.2000 and 7.8.2000 were legal, valid and speaking orders. All the pleas raised by the plaintiff in the plaint were controverted by the defendants and dismissal of the suit was prayed.;