R.S.A.No. 1494 of 2002 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1494 of 2002 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.7.2009 Mehal Singh ......Appellant Versus Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Mehal Singh filed a suit for declaration challenging order dated 7.6.1995 passed by defendant No.1 and order dated 20.10.1996 passed by defendant No.2. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.2001. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2001. Hence, the present appeal. R.S.A.No. 1494 of 2002 (O&M) 2 Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur in para Nos. 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are as under:- “2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff -appellant are that he is working as store man in Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited and at present he is posted at Makhu Officer. He is a regular permanent employee of the defendants. The defendant No.1 vide his order dated 7.6.95 imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect upon him. He filed an appeal against the said order before defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 vide order dated 20.10.95 reduced the punishment of stopping of two increments to stopping of one increment with future effect. Both the abovesaid orders are illegal and void and are liable to be set aside on the grounds that charge-sheet is wrong, illegal and defective in nature. It is not accompanied any list of witnesses of documents. The enquiry officer is neither the appointing authority not he was specifically appointed to hold the enquiry. The enquiry proceedings were conducted in an illegal manner. No proper opportunity was given to the plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses. The documents relied upon were neither produced nor proved during the course of enquiry. The show cause R.S.A.No. 1494 of 2002 (O&M) 3 notice issued to the plaintiff is illegal, wrong and defective in nature. The reply submitted by the plaintiff to show cause notice has not been considered. The points raised by the plaintiff in the ground of appeal had been rejected without specifying any reason. Defendants No.1 and 2 had not applied their mind to the facts of the present case and as such both the above orders passed by defendants No.1 and 2 are wrong, illegal, null and void. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendants, preliminary objections were taken that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form; that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the law of limitation; that this Court is not competent to try and dispose of the present case; no notice was ever served upon the defendants by the plaintiff before filing the present suit; that the plaintiff has not exhausted the remedies under the status and as such, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff is a regular employee of the Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited but it was denied that the orders dated 7.6.95 and 20.10.95 passed by defendants No. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff are wrong, illegal, null and void. A charge sheet was served upon the plaintiff and after holding a proper enquiry and affording a proper R.S.A.No. 1494 of 2002 (O&M) 4 opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff during the enquiry, the enquiry officer hold the plaintiff guilty for the charges levelled against him and defendant No.1 being punishing authority passed the order dated 7.6.95 against the plaintiff after issuing a show cause notice to him and after considering his reply. The plaintiff approached defendant No.2 by filing an appeal against the above said order which was dismissed by defendant No.2 after giving a proper opportunity of hearing. It is denied that no opportunity was given to the plaintiff of hearing. Dismissal of the suit was prayed.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether order dated 7.6.95 passed by defendant No.1 and order dated 20.10.95 passed by defendant No.2 is appeal are wrong, illegal, null and void and against the principle of natural justice and have no effect on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD R.S.A.No. 1494 of 2002 (O&M) 5 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of notice required to be given to the defendants before filing the present suit? OPD 6. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that there is not merit in this appeal. In the present case, the plaintiff despite having been given five effective opportunities including one last opportunity to lead his evidence, had failed to examine any witness. Even the plaintiff himself had failed to step into the witness box. Thus, the learned trial Court was left with no other option but to close the evidence of the plaintiff by order. Since the plaintiff had failed to lead any evidence in support of his case, the suit of the plaintiff was rightly dismissed by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 13, 2009 anita