RSA No.2258 of 1988 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2258 of 1988 Date of Decision: 8.5.2008 Prem Parkash ..Appellant. Vs. The State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN * * * Present: Mr.Puneet Bali, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Addl.AG Haryana for respondent. * * * Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration challenging order dated 18.1.1982 vide which his service was terminated because of his involvement in a criminal case registered vide FIR No.31 dated 8.1.1982 under Sections 420/120-B IPC read with Section 5(1) the Prevention of Corruption Act. The plaintiff had alleged that he was acquitted in the criminal case from the Court of Sh.S.K.Jain, the then learned Special Judge, Karnal vide order dated 27.10.1983 and that while passing the impugned order the provisions of Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1952 and Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India were not followed. In the written statement, it was pleaded that plaintiff was appointed on ad hoc basis in which it was categorically provided that his service could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason, therefore, Rule 7 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1952 and Article 311 RSA No.2258 of 1988 -2 - (2) of the Constitution do not apply. It was also alleged that the order of termination had least concern with the alleged criminal involvement of the plaintiff. After the replication, in which, the plaintiff reasserted his claim, the trial of the suit went on the following issues : (i) Whether the order dated 18.1.1982 passed by Director Agricultural Haryana is illegal, against the rule of natural justice, arbitrary and void ? OPP (ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD. (iii)Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD. (iv)Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. (v)Relief. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff inter alia on the ground that before filing the suit, the plaintiff had also filed a writ petition in this High Court against the impugned order dated 18.1.1982 which was dismissed and also the SLP preferred against that was rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the controversy stood finally adjudicated up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there was nothing left for the Courts below to decide in that matter. Counsel for the respondent has filed CM No.4174-C of 2008 in the present appeal in order to place on record order of the Hon'ble High Court passed in CWP No.3578 of 1982 titled as Prem Parkash Sharma Vs. The State of Haryana and others as Annexure R-I and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil No.1242 of 1983) titled as Prem Parkash Sharma Vs. The State of Haryana and others as Annexure R-II, which are taken on record today by a separate order in which the aforesaid CM has been allowed. RSA No.2258 of 1988 -3 - A bare perusal of the order passed in CWP No.3578 of 1982 would show that the order of termination dated 18.1.1982 has been termed by the Hon'ble Division Bench as perfectly an innocuous order. It is also mentioned in the order “The fact that the endorsement thereon mentions that this services be dispensed with from the date of his arrest by the police clearly does not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India to create any infirmity therein.” The order of the Hon'ble Division Bench vide which the writ petition was dismissed on 6.10.1982, is reproduced as under : “The challenge here is to the order of January 18, 1982, terminating the services of the petitioner. The petitioner was merely an ad hoc employee and his services were terminated by a perfectly innocuous order. The fact that the endorsement thereon mentions that this services be dispensed with from the date of his arrest by the police clearly does not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India to create any infirmity therein. There is, thus, no warrant for invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This writ petition is, thus, dismissed in limine. The oral prayer of the counsel for the petitioner for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is hereby declined.” From the reading of the above order, there is no room for any doubt that order dated 18.1.1982 which has already been challenged by the plaintiff before the Hon'ble High Court, has been upheld as SLP has also been dismissed on 26.3.1984. Counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality in RSA No.2258 of 1988 -4 - the judgment and decree of both the Courts below nor any involvement of question of law. Therefore, the present appeal, in which there is no question of law much less substantial, calls for no interference by this Court and as such the same is hereby dismissed, however, without order as to costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 8.5.2008 Judge Meenu