R.S.A. No. 2995 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2995 of 2010 Date of decision: 6.1.2011 Ganga Devi ......Appellant Versus The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh .......Respondent ********* CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Y.P. Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Ganga Devi filed a suit for declaration challenging order dated 8.7.1987, whereby her four increments was stopped with cumulative effect. Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.8.2009. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by Additional District Judge (III) Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.1980. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in paras No.2 to 6 of its judgment, read as under :- “2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/appellant has filed a suit R.S.A. No. 2995 of 2010 (O&M) 2 before the learned trial court for declaration along with mandatory injunction on the allegations that order dated 8.7.1987 passed by the defendant by virtue of which a major penalty of stopping her four increments with cumulative effect were ordered to be imposed and only the suspension allowance for the period she remained under suspension were allowed to be released is wrong, illegal and bad in law only to the extend that her four increments has been ordered to be stopped with cumulative effect and release of suspension of allowance only and further for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to release her annual increments and arrears of pay along with all other monetary service benefits. 3. It is pleaded that plaintiff was appointed by the office of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Fatehabad (Hisar) as class IV government servant (Sevika) vide orders dated 4.2.1981. She was charge sheeted by the said officer and was placed under suspension vide order bearing endorsement No.2214-17, dated 3.7.1986 on the basis of flimsical complaint made by the staff members. The enquiry officer was appointed vide office memo No.4552-54 dated 23.9.1986 and he submitted his report on 7.1.1987 but the said report is illegal, as the legal procedure was not adopted by him. The entire proceedings were conducted at the back of the plaintiff because nor she was allowed to inspect the record or to cross examine the witnesses and the copies of the statements of the witnesses were also not supplied to her. R.S.A. No. 2995 of 2010 (O&M) 3 4. Next, it is pleaded that the enquiry officer himself conducted as prosecuting officer and passed unreasoned opinion about the charges without applying his mind on the basis of which, the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies terminated her services vide order dated 19.3.1987 No.759-64, without affording an opportunity to her to call explanation against the opinion of inquiry officer and thus, principles of natural justice were not complied with. 5. Further, it is pleaded that the plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order before Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Hisar, who vide his order dated 28.5.1987 dismissed her appeal. She again filed an appeal before the final authority i.e. the defendant, who vide his order dated 8.7.1987 accepted the appeal and reinstated her. However, a major penalty of stopping her four increments with cumulative effect were ordered to be imposed and only the suspension allowances for the period she remained under suspension were allowed to be released. Under the present suit, the plaintiff challenges only that part of order dated 8.7.1987 by virtue of which four increments were stopped with cumulative effect and amount of suspension allowance was released to her. The enquiry file speaks for itself that the proceedings undertaken by the enquiry officer were not in accordance with law. Plaintiff served a legal notice dated 26.11.2001 upon the defendants, but to not effect. Hence, necessity arose to file the present suit. R.S.A. No. 2995 of 2010 (O&M) 4 6. Upon notice, defendant appeared in filed its written statement, wherein, certain preliminary were taken regarding limitation, non joinder of necessary parties; locus standi and cause of action etc. and it is admitted that plaintiff was appointed with the office of Assistant Registrar as Class IV employee. And it is submitted that she was charge sheeted under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952 on the allegations of mis- behave, unfair dealing, abusing to the staff, non compliance of orders, absence from duty, refusal to receive letters and corruption etc. Further it is pleaded that she was placed under suspension and a regular inquiry was conducted by Shri Nimla Ram, Inspector, Co-operative Societies, Ratia. The charges leveled against her were proved by the said inquiry officer vide report dated 7.1.1987. On these fats findings she was removed from the service on 19.3.1987. Further, it is pleaded that during the inquiry she was afforded sufficient opportunities including personal hearing to produce all the authentic documents, if any in support of her defence. Her appeal against the order dated 19.3.1987 was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Hisar but her appeal was accepted by Registrar Co-operative Societies, Haryana. Further, it is pleaded that plaintiff is challenging the impugned order dated 8.7.1987 after a long period of 18 years and she had an alternate remedy to file an appeal before the competent authority at the relevant time, as such the present suit is time barred. The suit is R.S.A. No. 2995 of 2010 (O&M) 5 stated to be bad for non joinder of necessary parties, as collector, has not been joined as a party. Hence, prayer for dismissal of the suit has been made.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether order dated 8.7.1987 passed by defendant thereby stopping four increments of plaintiff was cumulative effect and releasing suspension allowance for the period plaintiff remained under suspension, is wrong, illegal, bad in law and therefore, is liable to be set aside ? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether suit is time barred ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 7. Whether suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC ? OPD 8. Relief.” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. R.S.A. No. 2995 of 2010 (O&M) 6 Vide order dated 19.3.1987 plaintiff was ordered to be removed from service after holding a departmental inquiry. Aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff preferred a departmental appeal and vide impugned order dated 8.7.1987 plaintiff was ordered to be reinstated in service and punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff knew about the passing of the impugned order dated 8.7.1987. However, the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 2004 i.e. much beyond the period of limitation. The suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed being time barred. The Apex Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Gurdev Singh Ashok Kumar, 1991(5) S.L.R. 1, had held as under:- “It will be clear from these principles, the party aggrieved by the invalidity of the order has to approach the Court for relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and not binding upon him. He must approach the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. If the statutory time limit expires the Court cannot give the declaration sought for.” No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 6, 2011 Anand R.S.A. No. 2995 of 2010 (O&M) 7