RSA No.2135 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2135 of 2007 Date of Decision: October 20, 2009 Ravinder Kumar ...........Appellant Versus Union of India and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Ravinder Kumar filed a suit for declaration. The said suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 15.1.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2.The respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as respondent) filed suit for declaring order bearing No.1430/STC- K/DIS/96/2001 dated 13.2.1996 and the order dated 27.8.96, as RSA No.2135 of 2007 2 illegal, null and void along with all services benefits, on the averments that he was appointed in B.S.F. as constable on permanent basis against permanent post. Since his appointment, he has been discharging his duties efficiently and to the satisfaction of his superiors. He was undergoing training under the Commandant's BSF Kashmir and while his training was about to be completed, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 13.2.1996 along with two other constables. He preferred an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 27.8.96, received by him at Gurdaspur. These orders were impugned by the respondent on the grounds interalia that the same are non speaking; that the orders have been passed without conducting departmental enquiry; that he was condemned unheard; that no show cause notice was served upon him prior to passing order dated 13.2.1996. It was also averred that the notice served upon the appellants/defendants (herein after referred to as appellants) under Section 80 CPC did not yield any result forcing the respondent to file the instant suit. 4. The appellants upon notice contested the suit and in their written statement apart from raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the suit in the present form; territorial jurisdiction of the court to decide the suit and no cause of action having arisen to the respondent, on merits, admitted that respondent was enrolled as constable in BSF on 10.2.1995. However, remaining averments were denied. It was averred that the respondent was enrolled on temporary basis and he had not RSA No.2135 of 2007 3 been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. It was averred that the respondent did not complete his training, he never qualified in FPET and other subjects in spite of opportunities given to him. He failed to improve his performance. The respondent was not found to become an efficient member of the force and consequently, he was discharged from his service vide order dated 13.2.1996. The appeal of the respondent was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 27.8.96. All the grounds on which the respondent has impugned the said orders were denied and it was averred that the orders have been passed as per rules.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiffs is entitled to declaration as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form as alleged?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 3-A Whether this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit?OPD 4. Relief.” Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had been discharged from service after one year of his service without following the due procedure. As per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter (Exhibit D5), appellant could be discharged during the RSA No.2135 of 2007 4 first year of service in case he was not likely to become an efficient member of the force. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that as per the notification dated 29.5.1990, the appellant could be discharged from service in first two years of his service in case he was not likely to prove an efficient member of the force. Due to inadvertence in the appointment letter one year of service had been mentioned in clause (4) of part II, whereas, in view of the notification dated 29.5.1990, it should have been mentioned as two years. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed Plaintiff, admittedly, was appointed as a Constable on 10.2.1995. The order whereby the appellant was discharged (Annexure P1) was passed on 13.2.1996. Although in the appointment letter in clause (4) of part II , it has been mentioned that the appellant could be discharged in first year of his service in case he was not likely to become an efficient member of the force,however, as per notification dated 29.5.1990, the said period had been extended to two years. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge rightly held that, apparently, due to inadvertence in the appointment letter, it has been mentioned that the appellant could be discharged within one year of service instead of two year of his service. A perusal of the impugned order whereby the appellant was discharged reveals that the appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 13.02.1996 as he was not likely to become good member of the force Vide order (Exhibit P2) words `dismissed from service' were ordered to be treated as `discharged from service'. In these circumstances, the leaned Additional RSA No.2135 of 2007 5 District Judge rightly held that the impugned order had been passed by the defendants as per rules. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court, Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge October 20, 2009 arya