R.S.A. No.121 of 1986 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.121 of 1986. Decided on: November 09, 2009. Municipal Committee, Jalalabad (West), Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur, through its Executive Officer Shri Raj Kumar. .. Appellant VERSUS Mastan Singh .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT None for the appellant. Ms.Divya Godara, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by Sub Judge IIIrd Class, Ferozepur, dated 24.08.1984, and affirmed by Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated ...1 R.S.A. No.121 of 1986 16.10.1985. Brief facts of the case, as per the plaint of the plaintiff-respondent, are that the plaintiff-respondent was working as permanent employee of appellants Committee as Octroi Clerk. His services were terminated vide letter dated 04.11.1981, on the basis of a resolution dated 28.10.1981. The plaintiff-respondent claimed that neither any enquiry was conducted nor any notice required under law was given to him. The chargesheet issue issued to him was inconsistent with the provisions of Punjab Civil Services Rules and Punjab Municipal Act, 1911(for short 'the Act'). The plaintiff- respondent served a notice under Section 49 of the Act, on the appellants for reinstating him in service but it was ignored. The case of the defendant-appellant, as per the written statement, was that the respondent was not entitled to any notice. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain this suit was also objected to. It was claimed that the order of dismissal stood merged in the order passed by the appellate Authority under the Act. After permitting the plaintiff to file replication wherein the averments in the plaint had been reiterated, the trial Court framed the following issues: - 1.Whether order of termination of the service of the plaintiff was illegal as mentioned in the plaint?OPP. 2.Whether any valid notice was served on the defendant by the plaintiff?OPP ...2 R.S.A. No.121 of 1986 3.Whether civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit?OPD 4.Whether the suit for mere declaration is maintainable?OPD 5.Relief. Issue No.1, was decided in favour of the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that the copies of the result of enquiry conducted by the Committee against the plaintiff were not supplied to him and that the notice of 15 days was not served upon the plaintiff before his dismissal. Under issue No.2, it was held that the plaintiff had issued a valid legal notice before filing of the suit. Under issue No.3, the trial Court held that the legal statutory procedure having not been followed by the Municipal Committee, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. Issue No.4, was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, holding that the suit for declaration was maintainable. On the basis of findings on issue Nos.1 to 4, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed holding that the order of termination of the plaintiff-respondent from Octroi Clerk post on 04.11.1981, was illegal and not operative on the rights of the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court affirmed the findings on all the issues and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 16.10.1985. The concurrent finding of fact that plaintiff had been terminated from service illegally without following the statutory provisions of law have ...3 R.S.A. No.121 of 1986 been challenged in the RSA by the Municipal Committee. During the pendency of the appeal, vide impugned interim order dated 13.09.1990, it was ordered that half of the amount representing the salary last drawn by the plaintiff should be paid to the respondent. Counsel for the defendant-appellant informs that as per the intimation received by them half of the amount of salary payable to the plaintiff stood paid to him pursuant to orders dated 13.09.1990. However, it is not known to the counsel for the plaintiff- respondent whether the said order has been complied with or not. Without expression of any opinion on the implementation of the interim order, this appeal has been taken up for final adjudication. It has also been informed by counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that the plaintiff has died on 07.01.2000. Kuldeep Kaur, widow, Veerpal Kaur, daughter and Gamdoor Singh son, respectively, of the plaintiff-respondent, have not contacted the counsel. Vide order dated 31.10.2007, a notice was issued to the Municipal Committee, Jalalabad, to check up whether the Municipal Committee was interested in prosecuting the appeal. The registered notice issued pursuant to the said order is reported to have not been received back raising a presumption of notice having been received by the Municipal Committee. ...4 R.S.A. No.121 of 1986 I have gone through the grounds of appeal wherein the substantial question of law involved in the case which requires adjudication has not been mentioned. As per grounds of appeal, there has not been violation of Punjab Punishment and Appeal Rules or Punjab Municipal Act, as the respondent had been chargesheeted for having been found drunken at the time of his octroi duty and the cash collected by him was found to be short. He was not issuing receipts for octroi. A concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by the Courts below that there has been violation of Rules of natural justice and the statutory rules as the copy of resolution of enquiry conducted by the Committee was never supplied. When the rules of natural justice have been held to be violated, no case is made out for interference in the concurrent findings given by the Courts below. The appeal is dismissed. The arrears accruing from the dismissal of this appeal, if any, will be admissible till the date of retirement or till the date of his death and not beyond that. The appeal has been decided without impleading the Legal representatives of respondent in view of the provisions of Order XXII Rule 4, sub-rule 3 CPC, substituted by amendment incorporated by High Court Amendment of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE November 09, 2009. rka ...5