R.S.A.No.1995 of 1986. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No.1995 of 1986. Date of decision:30-1-2008 The State of Punjab and another. ...Appellants. Versus Jagir Singh. ...Respondent. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. Jatinder Sharma, DAG Punjab for the appellants. Mr. J.C.Verma, Senior Advocate with Ms.Meenakshi Verma, Advocate for the respondent. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. The defendants being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 22.3.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur whereby he partly accepted the appeal, have filed this Regular Second Appeal. The plaintiff, respondent herein, filed a suit for a declaration that 11 orders as mentioned in the head note of the plaint, inflicting punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect R.S.A.No.1995 of 1986. -2- and forfeiture of previous service passed by respondent No.2 were nul and void,ineffective, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, in violation of service rules, without jurisdiction,cryptic, unwarranted, non-speaking with consequential relief that he was entitled to all the benefits of service including pay and other allowances. The brief facts are that the plaintiff was working with defendant No.2 as a Conductor. He joined the post in the year 1967 and at that time his scale of pay was Rs.110-4-130-5-200. His service conditions were governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules, he being an employee of the Punjab Roadways Department. The pay scales of the Conductors were revised in the year 1980 with effect from January, 1978 but at that time his pay was fixed in the junior pay scale wrongly while the pay of his juniors was fixed in the higher pay scale. He represented to defendant No.2 for fixation of his correct pay but on inquiry he came to know in the year 1980 about the passing of the above 11 orders. No communication about these orders was given to him. No departmental inquiry was held against him. In some of the cases, he was served with illegal show cause notice. No reasonable opportunity had been given to him before passing the impugned orders. Both the defendants contested the claim of the plaintiff. In the joint written statement, besides taking preliminary objections. They admitted that the plaintiff was working as a Conductor in the Punjab R.S.A.No.1995 of 1986. -3- Roadways, Pathankot. They refuted the remaining allegations of the plaintiff. They pleaded that the impugned orders were perfectly legal and valid. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- i). Whether the impugned orders are illegal, null and void, ineffective, against the Service Rules and the principles of natural justice etc. as alleged?OPP. ii) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?OPD. Iii) Whether the suit is time barred?OPD. iv) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 80 CPC?OPD. v) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?OPD. vi) Relief. The learned trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Issue No.2 was decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.3 was partly decided against the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendants. Issue No.4 was decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. As a result of said findings, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 1.3.1985. R.S.A.No.1995 of 1986. -4- The plaintiff being aggrieved filed an appeal which was partly accepted by the Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.3.1986. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred this appeal. Jagir Singh plaintiff has also filed cross objections under Order 41Rule 22 CPC for setting aside that part of the judgment which was against him. The High Court vide order dated 17.8.1987 allowed the plaintiff to file the cross-objections. So, in these circumstances, both the appeal as well as cross objections are being disposed of with this common judgment. I have heard both sides and have gone through the record carefully. From the submissions made by both sides, the following questions of law are formulated;- 1. Whether the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment and order cannot be passed without any proper inquiry? 2. Whether the plaintiff can challenge the impugned order after a period of three years, the limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act? The plaintiff, in this case, has challenged 11 orders awarding him punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative R.S.A.No.1995 of 1986. -5- effect as detailed in the plaint. The learned trial Court set aside order No.1556 dated 28.10.1975 being non existent but dismissed the suit of the plaintiff regarding the remaining orders of punishment. However, the first Appellate Court partly accepted the appeal of the plaintiff and held that the impugned orders dated 26.9.1979, 29.12.1976, 11.11.1971 and 16.9.1976 were illegal being not passed after complying with the provisions of Service Rules. However, orders dated 23.12.1972, 27.10.1975, 6.10.1976, 10.2.1977 and 4.5.1977 were held to be legal one. The reasoning given by the learned first Appellate Court is that so far as orders dated 26.9.1979, 29.12.1976, 11.11.1971 and 16.9.1976 are concerned, these have not been conveyed to the plaintiff and have not been issued after serving him show cause notice. It has been further held that so far as orders dated 23.12.1972, 27.10.1975, 6.10.1976, 10.2.1977 and 4.5.1977 are concerned, they have been passed after due notice to the plaintiff and as such these orders were held to be valid. Mr. J. C. Verma, learned Senior Advocate for Jagir Singh,plaintiff/respondent has submitted that all the orders are liable to be set aside as the plaintiff was not charge-sheeted nor any inquiry was conducted and in view of authorities reported as Kulwant Singh Gill Versus The State of Punjab,1991(1) Recent Services Judgments 413, The State of Punjab through Secretary to Govt. Punjab Transport Department, Chandigarh and others Versus Mohinder Singh,1994 (1) Recent Services Judgments 286 and Harbans Singh Uppal Versus R.S.A.No.1995 of 1986. -6- State of Punjab through Circle Education Officer, Patiala Circle, Nabha (Patiala), 1997(2) Recent Services Judgments 578, awarding of punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment. Rules 8 and 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,1970 envisage the procedure to conduct an inquiry into the misconduct before ordering stoppage of increments. Stoppage of increments with cumulative effect would not fall within the meaning of Rule 5(v) of the said Rules. The abovesaid contention raised by Mr.Verma carries force and has to be accepted. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that all the punishments are stoppage of increments with cumulative effect. So, the question No.1 formulated above stands answered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. However, Mr. Verma could not cross the hurdles in respect of orders dated 23.12.1972, 27.10.1975, 6.10.1976, 10.2.1977 and 4.5.1977 regarding limitation. It is settled law that order of punishment can be challenged within three years of passing of such order. The last order was passed on 4.5.1977 but the present suit has been filed on 4.10.1983. So, the suit of the plaintiff qua the above-said orders is hopelessly time barred. The learned Appellate Court has given a definite finding that these five orders were passed after issuing show cause notices to the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff had the knowledge of passing these orders and as such on the point of limitation also, these orders cannot be challenged by the plaintiff. R.S.A.No.1995 of 1986. -7- So far as the remaining orders dated 26.9.1979, 29.12.1976, 11.11.1971 and 16.9.1976 are concerned, these orders were not conveyed to the plaintiff nor any show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff before passing these orders. Therefore, the period of limitation is not attracted to these orders as the same were not within the knowledge of the plaintiff. Therefore, the above-said point of limitation in respect of orders dated 23.12.1972, 27.10.1975, 6.10.1976, 10.2.1977 and 4.5.1977 stand answered in favour of the defendants/appellants. So far as orders dated 26.9.1979, 29.12.1976, 11.11.1971 and 16.9.1976 are concerned, these orders stand answered in favour of the plaintiff-cross objector on the point of limitation being not within his knowledge at the time of passing of orders. It is stated at the Bar that the plaintiff has retired from service since long. So, interference in the judgments of both the Courts below would be against the principles of natural justice. The net result of the above discussion is that the judgment of first Appellate Court does not call for any interference and as such the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab as well as cross-objections filed by the plaintiff-cross objector stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared and the files of Courts below be R.S.A.No.1995 of 1986. -8- returned after due compliance. January 30,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge