H.S. Bhalla, J. - (1.) 18th April, 1984 was declared as a black day for Jai Hind, who was working as a clerk in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Moga (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") when he was removed from service by his Punishing Authority. In order to revive his bread, he knocked the door of the Civil Court by filing a civil suit for declaration in which he challenged his order of removal as also the orders passed by the departmental appellate authorities. His suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Faridkot on 31.3.1992. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, he preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court, but his appeal was dismissed on 19.4.1993. He had no other option but to knock the door of this Court for securing a decree prayed for by him in the civil suit.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant was appointed as a Clerk in September, 1972. Vide order dated 19.2.1978 he was charge -sheeted by Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot on the allegations that he had allegedly prepared false records while he was posted as Clerk in the said office and thus misappropriated a sum of Rs. 33,363/ -which pertains to the government and he withdrew that amount from the Head 230 Non Judicial Stamp papers and converted that amount to his own use. Departmental inquiry was conducted against him. He was removed from service through the impugned orders. He challenged the order of removal from service passed by Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot dated 18.4.1984 as also the order passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division Ferozepur, by virtue of which his appeal was dismissed. He had also preferred a review petition, but the same was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab vide order dated 20.7.1988. All these orders were challenged by him by filing a civil suit for declaration to the effect that the orders are illegal, against the principles of natural justice and they be treated as non est and he be treated to be in the service of the State of Punjab with all benefits attached to the post. He has also categorically pleaded that proper procedure has not been followed for awarding major penalty as envisaged by Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal Rules) 1970. He has also disclosed that he was not supplied with the copies of documents, which were sought to be relied upon. No allegation of misappropriation could be leveled against him. It was not government money which he is alleged to have misappropriated. It was private money, which he is alleged to have misappropriated and therefore no pecuniary loss could be caused to the exchequer of the State and the withdrawal of that money does not amount to misconduct on his part so as to call for any departmental action to be taken against him and that the act does not fall within the definition of misappropriation.
(3.) The suit was contested by the State of Punjab and through the written statement, it was pointed out that due to fraud committed by the appellant, he was charge sheeted and after conducting inquiry, he was dismissed from service on 18.4.1984. Inquiry has been conducted against the appellant in accordance with law. Witnesses were cross -examined by the delinquent official during inquiry proceedings and after issuing show cause notice, personal hearing was also given and thereafter impugned orders were passed. The orders of the appellate authority and the revenue authority are legal and valid and have been passed in accordance with law. It is further pointed out that he prepared forged documents (refund vouchers) for the refund of stamps in different names, who applied to the Collector, Sub Division, Moga under Chapter 7, Part -B -II of Stamps Manual. The suit was also attacked on the ground that same is barred by time.;