R.S.A.No. 4135 of 2006(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4135 of 2006(O&M) Date of decision: 20.4.2011 State of Punjab and another ......Appellants Versus Tarlochan Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Satish Bhanot Addl.A.G.Punjab. Mr.Sanjiv Manrai, Advocate for respondent. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated 16.8.1995, whereby he was dismissed from service. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plaintiff had joined the services of the defendant as Inspector on 10.10.1965. A charge sheet was served on the plaintiff dated 28.1.1992 / 20.4.1992. The enquiry officer exonerated the plaintiff qua the charges levelled against him. The punishing authority, however, passed the impugned order, whereby the plaintiff was dismissed from R.S.A.No. 4135 of 2006(O&M) 2 service. The defendants, in their written statement, admitted the service period of the plaintiff and issuance of chargesheet to the plaintiff and the report submitted by the enquiry officer. However, it was averred that the impugned order of dismissal was legal and valid. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether order of dismissal dated 16.8.1985 endorsed vide endst. No.E.1 (3)- (86)/ 91-95/ 3237 dated 12.9.1995 is illegal, ultravires, unconstitutional, malafide, null and void? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-service of notice under Section 80-CPC? OPD 4.Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is premature ? OPD 6. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2003. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.8.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the R.S.A.No. 4135 of 2006(O&M) 3 opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had joined the service of the defendants as an Inspector on 10.10.1965. The impugned order of dismissal of services of the plaintiff was passed on 16.8.1995. Thus, the plaintiff had rendered about 30 years of service at the time of passing of the impugned order. Admittedly the enquiry officer had exonerated the plaintiff of the charges levelled against him. The punishing authority, however, disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer and proceeded to pass the impugned order of dismissal without giving any valid reason for disagreement. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 20, 2011 anita