R.S.A. No.3670 of 1987 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.3670 of 1987 Date of decision:01.07.2010. State of Punjab ...Appellant Versus Paramjit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab. None for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The imposition of impugned penalty was invalidated by the learned Trial Court by recording a finding of fact that the order directing the recovery of the relevant amount could not have been granted with retrospective effect. It too was held that reasonable opportunity had not been proved to have been afforded to the plaintiff – respondent. The relevant observations are contained in paras 7 to 9 of the Trial Court judgment. These paras are extracted hereasunder: - “7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I hold that the order in question was passed from retrospective effect. Therefore, the same was not legal and suffers from technical defect. Therefore, to remove this technical defect, the department is directed to give fresh show cause notice to the plaintiff and hear him before passing the new final order R.S.A. No.3670 of 1987 -2- ***** and department is directed to decide the question of pay of the employee if his absence from duty was justified. Therefore, this issue is decided accordingly. Issue No.2. 8. Counsel for the defendant urged that impugned order had been passed on 14.09.1979 when the present suit was instituted on 25.07.85. Therefore, he urged that the present suit was hopelessly time barred. On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff urged that the present suit was not time barred as the plaintiff had only claimed arrears of pay for three years before the institution of the suit and he urged that the order in question is illegal and void and the same can be challenged at any time. Counsel for the defendant relied upon the observation of Hon'ble Punjab High Court in case Amrik Singh V. State of Punjab 1980(2) Service Law Reporter page 616 in support of his contention. Therefore, considering the facts and law point I hold that the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and recovery of pay for three years is not time barred and as such i decide this issue accordingly. Issue No.3 9. In view of my finding on issue No.1, I hold that the order dated 14.9.79 is technically bad and the plaintiff is granted limited declaration to that effect and the defendant is directed to serve a fresh show cause notice to the plaintiff in a inquiry and hear his plea before passing fresh final order. The department is also directed to decide the question of R.S.A. No.3670 of 1987 -3- ***** entitlement of pay to the plaintiff if his absence is found justified. The suit is decreed accordingly with costs. Decree sheet be prepared. Ahlmad to consign the file.” The finding of fact to the above effect was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. Both the Courts categorically held that the invalidation of the impugned order would not preclude the Competent Authority from proceeding afresh against the plaintiff – respondent in accordance with the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The learned State counsel informs that, as per his instructions, the plaintiff – respondent retired from service on 28.02.2009. The learned State counsel has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any substantial question of law which arises for consideration by this Court. The well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and also the learned First Appellate Court deserve affirmation and it is so ordered accordingly. There being no substantial question of law for consideration, this Regular Second Appeal shall stand dismissed. Disposed of accordingly. July 01, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE