Regular Second Appeal No. 1896 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No. 31-C of 1987 and Regular Second Appeal No. 1896 of 1987 DATE OF DECISION: April 21, 2010 The State of Punjab .....Appellant VERSUS Jit Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the appellant. None for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Regular Second Appeal alongwith Cross Objection filed therein. Jit Singh, respondent-plaintiff was working as Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahr. Aggrieved against two orders of punishment passed on 02.05.1972 and on 01.06.1973, reducing him to the minimum of the time scale for 3 years and directing stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect respectively, the respondent had suit was to challenge the said orders. The suit was filed on 09.02.1984. In response to notice issued, the defendant-State filed a Regular Second Appeal No. 1896 of 1987 2 written statement justifying the orders besides raising a plea of limitation and also stated that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 CPC. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 2. Whether valid notice under Section 80 C.P.C. been served upon the defendant? If not, its effect? OPP. 3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for? OPP 5. Whether the suit is within time? OPP 6. Relief. The trial Court held both orders dated 2.5.1972 and 1.6.1973 to be null and void. The Court, however, found that the suit was not filed within 3 years and thus decided the issue regarding the limitation in favour of the State. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal against the same, which was partly allowed. It was held that the order reducing the respondent-plaintiff to minimum of the time scale was passed without holding any inquiry. It is observed that this penalty being a major penalty was passed in violation of the rules contained in Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). It was also noticed that the General Manager even did not issue show cause notice to the respondent-plaintiff. This order was further found to be non-speaking one. Regular Second Appeal No. 1896 of 1987 3 The order dated 01.06.1973 was found to be standing on a different footing. It was noticed that the respondent-plaintiff was called upon to explain his conduct when he gave in writing Ex. D1 admitting the charge and thereafter the order was passed stopping his two increments with cumulative effect. Though this was termed to be a minor penalty and it was observed that no regular inquiry was necessary. Even if it is taken to be a major penalty, then also there would not be any need to hold an inquiry in view of the admission of guilt made by the respondent-plaintiff. Accordingly, this order is to held as validly made and thus would not suffer from any infirmity. While partly allowing the appeal, the plea of limitation which had weighed with the trial Court was ignored on the ground that the order passed in violation of principle of natural justice was non est being ab-initio and hence the limitation would not be attracted in such case. This view as taken by the First Appellant Court cannot now be sustained in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sneh Gupta versus Devi Sarup and others 2009 (6) SCC 194. The Supreme Court has held that there is no law where the decree is void, no period of limitation for setting aside thereof shall be attracted at all. Thus, the view taken by the First Appellate Court would call for interference on the question of law regarding limitation which would be a substantial question of law. Though the respondent-plaintiff has filed cross objections but there is no infirmity in view taken by the First Appellate Court in regard to order dated 2.5.1972. The substantial question of law which would arise in this case would be, “Whether there was need to hold an regular inquiry even after admission made by the respondent- Regular Second Appeal No. 1896 of 1987 4 plaintiff to the allegation made against him”? Even in terms of Rule 8 of the rules a regular inquiry where one admits his guilt is not needed. The substantial question of law thus has to be answered accordingly. Even the plea of limitation to challenge the void order would arise in this case which has also not been rightly decided. The impugned judgment partly accepting the appeal, thus, cannot be sustained. As a result the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by the trial Court shall stand restored. There shall be no order as to costs. As a consequence, cross objections are dismissed. April 21, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE