R.S.A. No. 325 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 325 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.1.2009 State of Punjab and others ....Appellants Versus Darshan Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 27.2.2007 and 26.3.2008 passed by the learned Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent seeking decree of declaration to the effect that letter dated 26.7.2007 issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda imposing penal rent and ordering its recovery to be arbitrary, illegal and null and void, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from implementing order impugned. Stand was taken that the impugned order had been passed without hearing plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff/respondent was transferred as Warden. He was not allowed to join his new place of posting without any reasonable cause and, in fact, he was allowed to join the duty only after he approached this Court by way of civil writ petition. He continued to occupy the residence allotted to him being R.S.A. No. 325 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Warden of the jail. After the plaintiff/respondent was allowed to join the posting in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, he vacated the premises within stipulated period as per rules. By ignoring the facts, the impugned order was passed imposing penal rent for the period he continued to occupy the official residence. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, null and void and had been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. This appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. Even otherwise, the appeal is barred by 165 days. Though the appellants have tried to explain the delay, but the same cannot be said to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 165 days as the delay occurred due to negligence and not due to the administrative reasons, as is projected. Thus, no ground for condonation of delay of 165 days is made out, as no sufficient cause is shown. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as merits, as it raises no substantial question of law. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 19, 2009 R.S.