Regular Second Appeal No. 2588 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2588 of 1986 Date of decision: 17.03.2010 Jagir Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. As per the counsel appearing for the appellant, the substantial question of law would arise in this case and it is to the effect whether the appellant-plaintiff could be dismissed from service with retrospective effect. This question of law is formulated in the background of the following facts. The appellant-plaintiff was working as Driver in Punjab Roadways, Amritsar. The bus driven by him met with an accident on 10.05.1977 resulting in death of one person. For this the appellant was tried for an offence under Section 304 A IPC and was convicted. He filed an appeal against his conviction, which was dismissed and on the basis of his conviction, the services of the appellant-plaintiff were terminated on 17.03.1981 but w.e.f. 25.07.1980. He accordingly challenged this order of termination being illegal, besides being Regular Second Appeal No. 2588 of 1986 2 contrary to rules and principles of natural justice. The plea in the civil suit was that the offence for which the appellant stood convicted did not involve moral turpitude and thus he could not have been dismissed from service on this ground. The suit was contested by the respondent-State. The State also raised the plea of jurisdiction of civil Court to try the suit as the appellant was stated to be Industrial worker. The other facts were admitted and accordingly the order of termination was said to be legal and justified. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the impugned order dated 17.3.81 is illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and not binding on the plaintiff?OPP. 2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?OPD. 3. Relief. The suit filed by the appellant was dismissed so too was the fate of this appeal. He had filed the present Regular Second Appeal, which has now come up for hearing. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made the limited prayer in support of the Regular Second Appeal to say that the order of dismissal could not have been given the retrospective effect and hence has to operate from the date it was so ordered. In support, he has drawn my attention to Jasbir Kaur versus State of Punjab and others 2008 (2) RSJ 210. In this case, the appellant was suspended on 23.08.2001 and order of termination Regular Second Appeal No. 2588 of 1986 3 was passed on 27.04.2006 w.e.f. the date of suspension i.e. from 23.08.2001. This court, accordingly, held that this order of dismissal was liable to be set aside. This question relating to passing an order of dismissal with retrospective effect was said to be no more res integra. In view of the decision in the case of Municipal Committee, Dina Nagar vs. The Commissioner Jullundur Division and others 1977 SLWR (Pb.&Hy.) 313 where it was held as under:- “It was contended by Shri Sri Chand Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant, the enquiry could be held even after respondent No. 2 had attained the age of superannuation, as he had agreed in this Court in the earlier petition that the enquiry could be made against him. We are afraid, we are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. There can be no gainsaying that after respondent No. 2 had retired no enquiry could legally be held against him. Merely this fact that some statement had been made by respondent No. 2 as was contended by Mr. Goyal would be no ground to hold that the enquiry that was held after the retirement of the respondent would be legal. Moreover, the impugned order was passed on December 8, 1970, dismissing respondent No. 2 with effect from April 15, 1965, which on the face of it, is contrary to law and as held by the learned Single Judge, could not legally be sustained. Thus viewed from any angle, we find that the order of dismissal passed by the appellant was bad in law and could not legally be sustained.” Regular Second Appeal No. 2588 of 1986 4 This question of law thus is to be answered accordingly. However, there is no other infirmity in the impugned order. The order under appeal is thus modified to say that the impugned order of termination would have effect from the date it was passed i.e. 17.03.1981 and not from the retrospective date i.e. 25.07.1980. The decree passed by the Court shall stand modified accordingly. Modified decree be prepared by the Registry of this Court. Subject to the above observation, the Regular Second Appeal shall stand dismissed. March 17, 2010 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE