In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.3515 of 1987 ..... Date of decision:20.10.2011 The State of Punjab and another .....Appellants v. Hardial Singh .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. None for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court vide which appeal of the appellants-State (defendants) has been dismissed. As per facts of this case, plaintiff-Hardial Singh was working as a teacher. A case under Section 420 IPC was registered against him on 22.1.1976. As the plaintiff (respondent herein) was arrested in that case, he was placed under suspension on 6.9.1976. He was convicted and sentenced in that case, however, in appeal his conviction was maintained but he was R.S.A. No.3515 of 1987 [2] ordered to be released on probation on 18.5.1979. He was reinstated in service on 21.7.1979. On 30.6.1983, after the lapse of three years, a notice was served upon him to show cause as to why the suspension period should not be treated as the period not spent on duty. He challenged this notice by filing a suit for declaration that notice dated 30.6.1983 issued by defendant No.2 (appellants herein) is void, arbitrary, and illegal. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the notice served on the plaintiff was perfectly valid. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many five issues, the main issue No.1 whether the impugned notice is illegal, ineffective and inoperative against the plaintiff was decided in favour of the plaintiff and his suit was decreed. The trial Court held that the defendants-Punjab State could not be permitted to consider the period of suspension as a period not spent on duty after the lapse of three years of reinstatement of the plaintiff. The defendants-appellants filed appeal before the appellate Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 17.4.1986. Aggrieved from this order the State of Punjab has come in appeal. The following substantial question of law is framed in this case. Whether the Government is entitled to issue notice after a period of three years of reinstatement of the plaintiff to treat the suspension period not spent on duty? From the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that at the time of reinstatement of the plaintiff in service the Department did not pass any order regarding the suspension period and it remained silent for three years. When the reinstatement order was passed, the appellants were to take the decision regarding the suspension period of the respondent as R.S.A. No.3515 of 1987 [3] well. When the respondent has been reinstated, the Department was required to take decision on the period of suspension as to how it is to be treated. No decision has been taken at that time. After lapse of three years after his reinstatement, no decision has been taken on the suspension period. So, it is presumed that the Department has waived off its right to take decision and after a gap of three years they cannot be permitted to take decision against the interest of the respondent-employee. Resultantly, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. October 20, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*