RSA No.1237 of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 109 MAJOR SINGH MAJOR SINGH MAJOR SINGH MAJOR SINGH Vs Vs Vs Vs PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, PUNJAB AND ORS. PUNJAB AND ORS. PUNJAB AND ORS. PUNJAB AND ORS. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the appellant. Mr. Arun Jindal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The by the respondents thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit. [2]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1996 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar (hereinafter to be referred as the appeal filed at decree dated 01.12.1992 passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge II Class, Jalandhar (hereinafter to be referred as the declaration filed by the appellant judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court; consequently, the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the appellant 1997 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. RSA No. RSA No. RSA No.1237 1237 1237 1237 Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: MAJOR SINGH MAJOR SINGH MAJOR SINGH MAJOR SINGH PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, PUNJAB AND ORS. PUNJAB AND ORS. PUNJAB AND ORS. PUNJAB AND ORS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Arun Jindal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) The appellant-plaintiff is in appeal respondents-defendants was accepted by the lea thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1996 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, (hereinafter to be referred as the ““““First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court the instance of respondents-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.1992 passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge II Class, (hereinafter to be referred as the ““““Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court declaration filed by the appellant-plaintiff, was accepted; thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court; consequently, the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the appellant IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH 1237 1237 1237 1237 of of of of 1997 1997 1997 1997 (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: Date of Decision: 08 08 08 08.0.0.0.07777.202 .202 .202 .2026666 ...... ...... ...... ......Appellant Appellant Appellant Appellant PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent ....Respondent((((ssss)))) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJAAAA Mr. Arun Jindal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. before this Court. First appeal filed by the learned First Appellate Court thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1996 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court First Appellate Court””””), whereby an defendants against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.1992 passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge II Class, Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court Trial Court””””)))) decreeing the suit for plaintiff, was accepted; thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court; consequently, the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. 1 . First appeal filed rned First Appellate Court thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1996 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, ), whereby an defendants against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.1992 passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge II Class, decreeing the suit for plaintiff, was accepted; thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court; consequently, the suit for MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.13 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.1237 of 1997 [3]. Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff with the averments that he joined the PAP as Constable on 28.01.1964 at Jalandhar and since then was working to the entire satisfaction of hi superiors. Due to his medical condition, the appellant treatment from the Govt. Rajindra Hospital, Patiala w.e.f. 02.09.1980. It was pleaded that due to ex dismissed from se the basis of various alleged charges. It was further averred that the proceedings held against the appellant 16.24(1) of the Punjab Police him. Against the order of dismissal, appellant Hon’ble Governor of Punjab, however, vide order dated 20.08.1991 passed by respondent No.2, the same was rejected. [4]. Upon notice, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections of limitation. It was pleaded that the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed from service on 07.05.1981 and order of dismissal was served upon his brother of his native village. thus well beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three years. It was further averred that the work and conduct of the appell satisfactory, and that he had willfully remained absent from duty. Despite the issuance of repeated notices, the appellant consequently, ex accordance with law, and he was rightly dismissed from service by respondent No.4 vide order dated 07.05.1981. It was further pleaded that the appellant 1997 (O&M) Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff with the averments that he joined the PAP as Constable on 28.01.1964 at Jalandhar and since then was working to the entire satisfaction of hi superiors. Due to his medical condition, the appellant treatment from the Govt. Rajindra Hospital, Patiala w.e.f. 02.09.1980. It was pleaded that due to ex-parte departmental proceedings, the appellant dismissed from service vide order dated 07.05.1981 passed by respondent No.4 on the basis of various alleged charges. It was further averred that the proceedings held against the appellant-plaintiff 16.24(1) of the Punjab Police Rules as no opportunity of hearing was provided to him. Against the order of dismissal, appellant-plaintiff made representation to the Hon’ble Governor of Punjab, however, vide order dated 20.08.1991 passed by respondent No.2, the same was rejected. Upon notice, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections of limitation. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was dismissed from service on 07.05.1981 and order of dismissal was served upon his brother on 11.05.1981 in the presence of Sarpanch of his native village. The present suit, having been filed only on 09.12.1991, was thus well beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three years. It was further averred that the work and conduct of the appell satisfactory, and that he had willfully remained absent from duty. Despite the issuance of repeated notices, the appellant-plaintiff never resumed his duties; ex-parte departmental proceedings were initiated against accordance with law, and he was rightly dismissed from service by respondent No.4 vide order dated 07.05.1981. It was further pleaded that the appellant Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff with the averments that he joined the PAP as Constable on 28.01.1964 at Jalandhar and since then was working to the entire satisfaction of hi superiors. Due to his medical condition, the appellant-plaintiff was taking treatment from the Govt. Rajindra Hospital, Patiala w.e.f. 02.09.1980. It was proceedings, the appellant-plaintiff was rvice vide order dated 07.05.1981 passed by respondent No.4 on the basis of various alleged charges. It was further averred that the ex-parte plaintiff were against the provision of Rule Rules as no opportunity of hearing was provided to plaintiff made representation to the Hon’ble Governor of Punjab, however, vide order dated 20.08.1991 passed by Upon notice, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections of limitation. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was dismissed from service on 07.05.1981 and order of on 11.05.1981 in the presence of Sarpanch The present suit, having been filed only on 09.12.1991, was thus well beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three years. It was further averred that the work and conduct of the appellant-plaintiff had not been satisfactory, and that he had willfully remained absent from duty. Despite the plaintiff never resumed his duties; departmental proceedings were initiated against him in accordance with law, and he was rightly dismissed from service by respondent No.4 vide order dated 07.05.1981. It was further pleaded that the appellant-plaintiff 2 Briefly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaintiff with the averments that he joined the PAP as Constable on 28.01.1964 at Jalandhar and since then was working to the entire satisfaction of his plaintiff was taking treatment from the Govt. Rajindra Hospital, Patiala w.e.f. 02.09.1980. It was plaintiff was rvice vide order dated 07.05.1981 passed by respondent No.4 on parte against the provision of Rule Rules as no opportunity of hearing was provided to plaintiff made representation to the Hon’ble Governor of Punjab, however, vide order dated 20.08.1991 passed by Upon notice, respondents/defendant(s) appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections of limitation. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was dismissed from service on 07.05.1981 and order of on 11.05.1981 in the presence of Sarpanch The present suit, having been filed only on 09.12.1991, was thus well beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three years. It was further plaintiff had not been satisfactory, and that he had willfully remained absent from duty. Despite the plaintiff never resumed his duties; him in accordance with law, and he was rightly dismissed from service by respondent plaintiff MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.13 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.1237 of 1997 never preferred an appeal rules governing his service conditions. [5]. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: “1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. [6]. The learned t 01.12.1992, decreed the suit in favour of the appellant [7]. Aggrieved thereof, the respondents which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated learned First Appellate Court and consequently, the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the appellant Second Appeal. [8]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book and records of the case as well. [9]. A perusal of the record shows that the services of the appellant/plaintiff, who was working as a Constable with the Punjab Armed Pol were terminated pursuant to a regular inquiry vide order dated 07.05.1981 passed by respondent No.4 1997 (O&M) never preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority in terms of the relevant es governing his service conditions. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is Whether the notice under Section 80 CPC is not legal and valid? OPD. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is under valued for purposes of jurisdiction and court fees? OPD. Relief.” The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 01.12.1992, decreed the suit in favour of the appellant Aggrieved thereof, the respondents which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated learned First Appellate Court and consequently, the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present Regular I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book and records of the case as well. A perusal of the record shows that the services of the appellant/plaintiff, who was working as a Constable with the Punjab Armed Pol were terminated pursuant to a regular inquiry vide order dated 07.05.1981 passed by respondent No.4–The Commandant, 36th Battalion, PAP, Bahadurgarh, District before the Appellate Authority in terms of the relevant On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD. Whether the notice under Section 80 CPC is not legal and valid? Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present Whether the suit of the plaintiff is under valued for purposes of nd court fees? OPD. rial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 01.12.1992, decreed the suit in favour of the appellant-plaintiff. Aggrieved thereof, the respondents-defendants filed the first appeal, which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.1996 passed by the learned First Appellate Court and consequently, the suit for declaration preferred at plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present Regular I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the A perusal of the record shows that the services of the appellant/plaintiff, who was working as a Constable with the Punjab Armed Police, were terminated pursuant to a regular inquiry vide order dated 07.05.1981 passed The Commandant, 36th Battalion, PAP, Bahadurgarh, District 3 before the Appellate Authority in terms of the relevant On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? Whether the notice under Section 80 CPC is not legal and valid? Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present Whether the suit of the plaintiff is under valued for purposes of rial Court vide its judgment and decree dated defendants filed the first appeal, passed by the learned First Appellate Court and consequently, the suit for declaration preferred at plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present Regular I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the A perusal of the record shows that the services of the ice, were terminated pursuant to a regular inquiry vide order dated 07.05.1981 passed The Commandant, 36th Battalion, PAP, Bahadurgarh, District MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.13 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.1237 of 1997 Patiala. No statutory appeal, as contemplated under Rule 16.29 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Volume II), was preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the said order. It was only after a lapse of more than ten years that a representation was filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the Hon'ble Governor of Punjab, which was forwarded to the rejected vide order dated 20.08.1991. [10]. By way of suit for declaration, the validity of both orders dated 07.05.1981 and 20.08.1991, passed by respondent Nos.4 and 2 respectively. It is not in dispute that the order of dismissal dated 07.05.1981 was duly served upon the appellant/plaintiff through his brother, in the presence of the Sarpanch of his native village. For a period of more than ten years thereafter, no challenge was laid to the said order, nor was any statutory appeal preferred under Rule 16.29 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Volume II). The orders came to be assailed only by way of the present suit, filed on 09.12.1991 more than ten years after limitation. [11]. Further, appellant/plaintiff before the Hon'ble Governor of Punjab in 1991 came to be decided by respondent No.2 on 20.08.1991 could n action in his favour, since the representation was not backed by any statutory mechanism, whether by way of rules or instructions [12]. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding n perversity with the findings of the fact recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, there being no evidence available on record; the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby 1997 (O&M) Patiala. No statutory appeal, as contemplated under Rule 16.29 of the Punjab 934 (Volume II), was preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the said order. It was only after a lapse of more than ten years that a representation was filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the Hon'ble Governor of Punjab, which was forwarded to the Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt., and was rejected vide order dated 20.08.1991. By way of suit for declaration, the validity of both orders dated 07.05.1981 and 20.08.1991, passed by respondent .4 and 2 respectively. It is not in dispute that the order of dismissal dated 07.05.1981 was duly served upon the appellant/plaintiff through his brother, in the presence of the Sarpanch of his native village. For a period of more than ten years , no challenge was laid to the said order, nor was any statutory appeal preferred under Rule 16.29 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Volume II). The came to be assailed only by way of the present suit, filed on 09.12.1991 more than ten years after the date of dismissal and was, thus, clearly barred by Further, mere fact that the representation filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the Hon'ble Governor of Punjab in 1991 came to be decided by respondent No.2 on 20.08.1991 could n action in his favour, since the representation was not backed by any statutory whether by way of rules or instructions In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding n perversity with the findings of the fact recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, there being no misreading or any mis-interpretation evidence available on record; the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby Patiala. No statutory appeal, as contemplated under Rule 16.29 of the Punjab 934 (Volume II), was preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the said order. It was only after a lapse of more than ten years that a representation was filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the Hon'ble Governor of Punjab, which was Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt., and was By way of suit for declaration, the appellant/plaintiff assailed the validity of both orders dated 07.05.1981 and 20.08.1991, passed by respondent .4 and 2 respectively. It is not in dispute that the order of dismissal dated 07.05.1981 was duly served upon the appellant/plaintiff through his brother, in the presence of the Sarpanch of his native village. For a period of more than ten years , no challenge was laid to the said order, nor was any statutory appeal preferred under Rule 16.29 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Volume II). The came to be assailed only by way of the present suit, filed on 09.12.1991 the date of dismissal and was, thus, clearly barred by mere fact that the representation filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the Hon'ble Governor of Punjab in 1991 came to be decided by respondent No.2 on 20.08.1991 could not give rise to a fresh cause of action in his favour, since the representation was not backed by any statutory whether by way of rules or instructions, issued by the State of Punjab. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findings of the fact recorded by the learned First Appellate interpretation of the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby 4 Patiala. No statutory appeal, as contemplated under Rule 16.29 of the Punjab 934 (Volume II), was preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the said order. It was only after a lapse of more than ten years that a representation was filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the Hon'ble Governor of Punjab, which was Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt., and was appellant/plaintiff assailed the validity of both orders dated 07.05.1981 and 20.08.1991, passed by respondent .4 and 2 respectively. It is not in dispute that the order of dismissal dated 07.05.1981 was duly served upon the appellant/plaintiff through his brother, in the presence of the Sarpanch of his native village. For a period of more than ten years , no challenge was laid to the said order, nor was any statutory appeal preferred under Rule 16.29 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Volume II). The came to be assailed only by way of the present suit, filed on 09.12.1991, the date of dismissal and was, thus, clearly barred by mere fact that the representation filed by the appellant/plaintiff before the Hon'ble Governor of Punjab in 1991 came to be ot give rise to a fresh cause of action in his favour, since the representation was not backed by any statutory issued by the State of Punjab. o illegality or perversity with the findings of the fact recorded by the learned First Appellate the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.13 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No.1237 of 1997 dismissed, while upholding the judgment and decree dated the learned First Appellate Court instance of the appellant [13]. All pending application July July July July 00008888, 202 , 202 , 202 , 2026666 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 1997 (O&M) dismissed, while upholding the judgment and decree dated the learned First Appellate Court dismissing the instance of the appellant-plaintiff. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No dismissed, while upholding the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1996 passed by dismissing the suit for declaration preferred at the , if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE 5 passed by referred at the MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.13 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment