In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.1125 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:6.9.2011 Kulwant Rai .....Appellant v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This regular second appeal has been filed by plaintiff-Kulwant Singh against the judgment and decree dated 4.1.1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the judgment and decree dated 23.5.1986 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Pathankot has been partly reversed. The learned first appellate Court has partly accepted the appeal of the defendants-State of Punjab and reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court in respect of impugned orders dated R.S.A. No.1125 of 1988 [2] 21.5.1981, 12.10.1981 and three orders dated 20.1.1982 of stopping of increments and upheld the above judgment and decree in respect of impugned orders dated 18.1.1983 and 12.4.1985 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Pathankot-defendant/appellant No.2 (respondent No.2 herein). Brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff (appellant herein) was working in the Punjab Roadways as Conductor. During the course of his employment, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and his increments were stopped as per orders dated 21.5.1981, 12.10.1981, three orders dated 20.1.1982, orders dated 18.1.1983 and 12.4.1985. The case of the plaintiff is that neither he received any of the impugned orders nor these were ever communicated to him and he only came to know about these orders in the month of July 1985, when he made inquiries from the office as to why his pay is less than his juniors. The concerned official told him that on account of the above impugned orders, his annual increments had been stopped. As the above orders were not communicated to him, he filed civil suit on 17.10.1985 contending that the impugned orders were illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, null and void, against the principles of natural justice and service rules, cryptic, non-speaking, ineffective and against his rights. He also prayed for a consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondents to release the arrears of his salary, ignoring the above said orders. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the respondents by filing written statement and taking up various grounds including the ground that the suit of the plaintiff was badly barred by limitation and was liable to R.S.A. No.1125 of 1988 [3] be dismissed on this score alone. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as five issues, however, the main issue whether above impugned orders were illegal, null and void was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the respondents. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff while taking into account the findings on all the issues by holding that the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 stopping annual increments of the appellant with cumulative effect/without cumulative effect were illegal, null and void, ineffective, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and service rules etc. By way of consequential relief the respondents were directed to release arrears of the salary and all other benefits of service to the plaintiff. The first appellate Court took up the issue of limitation with regards to impugned orders dated 21.5.1981, 12.10.1981 and three orders dated 20.1.1982 and set aside the findings of the trial Court by accepting the appeal and holding that the suit of the plaintiff Kulwant Singh was time barred. However, it upheld the order of the trial Court with regard to orders dated 18.1.1983 and 12.4.1985. Vide order dated 18.1.1983 one annual grade increment was stopped with cumulative effect. It was held that the punishing authority did not supply the reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at and this order was held to be non-speaking order. Vide order dated 12.4.1985 six annual grade increments of the appellant with permanent effect were stopped after full dressed inquiry. This order of the punishing authority was set aside as the Traffic Manager, who conducted the inquiry, was a member of the party which checked the bus on which the R.S.A. No.1125 of 1988 [4] appellant was a Conductor and this order was set aside as against the principles of natural justice which require that some other person should have conducted the inquiry impartially. As the principles of natural justice were violated, hence this order was held to be illegal, null and void. I have heard Mr. G.C. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents and have gone through the record very carefully. While arguing before me, learned counsel for the appellant has laid emphasis on the point that the first appellate Court has illegally held the orders dated 21.5.1981, 12.10.1981 and three orders dated 20.1.1982 as barred by limitation. The reasons given by the appellate Court for reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court are not sustainable in law as these orders were not speaking orders and no reasons had been given while passing the said orders. It is argued that law of limitation in such a situation does not apply and the appellant could challenge the orders at any time as has already been held by the learned trial Court. It is further argued that the learned lower appellate Court has erred in holding that the impugned orders were voidable and could be challenged within a period of three years. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant was not at all aware of the impugned orders. The appellant came to know of the impugned orders only in July 1985 when he came to know that his juniors were drawing more pay than him. He thereafter immediately inquired from the office as to why he was drawing less pay than his juniors. It is then he came to know that his increments had been stopped with cumulative effect/without cumulative effect vide the above mentioned impugned orders, R.S.A. No.1125 of 1988 [5] therefore, the civil suit had been filed on 17.10.1985 which was within limitation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order passed by the learned appellate Court is well reasoned order and does not call for any interference as the appellant did not care for more than four years to challenge the orders stopping his increments. It is submitted that the suit for declaration against these orders has been filed by the plaintiff before the learned lower Court only on 17.10.1985 which is miserably time barred having not been filed within three years from the date of passing of the orders i.e. between 21.5.1981 and 20.1.1982. After appreciating the arguments addressed by both the sides, I am of the considered view that the limitation clock started ticking from 21.5.1981 when the first order stopping increment was passed. In Punjab State v. Swarn Singh, Conductor, RSA No.2515 of 1986 (decided on 3.9.1987), this Court has held that a public servant is presumed to know the date of his increments and if the same are not allowed, it is presumed that he would agitate the matter before the competent authority to ask for allowance of the increment, if the same is not stopped. Further more, due effect had been given to the impugned orders in the service record of the appellant and it could not, therefore, be said that the appellant could ignore the same. If these orders were not communicated to him or were non-speaking orders, then he should have challenged the same within limitation as there is not only one order which he could ignore but there were five orders passed stopping his annual increments between 21.5.1981 and 20.1.1982 and he did R.S.A. No.1125 of 1988 [6] not care to challenge these orders upto 17.10.1985. Since the suit has been filed in the trial Court on 17.10.1985 it was hopelessly time barred. Resultantly, there is no error or ambiguity in the judgment passed by the first appellate Court. Consequently, the regular second appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. September 6, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*