IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 320 of 2008 Date of Order: 22.10.2008 Budh Ram ...Appellant Versus Inspector General of Police, Haryana and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, D.A.G.,Haryana. for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellant, challenges the judgments and decrees, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, dated 18.08.2005 and the District Judge, Yamunagar, dated 26.07.2007, dismissing the suit and the appeal, filed by the appellant. While working as a police constable with the Haryana Police, the appellant was served with a show cause notice. An enquiry ensued and the enquiry officer submitted his report indicting the appellant. The Superintendent of Police imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 18.01.1996. The revision filed by the appellant before the revisional authority was dismissed on 25.06.1996. The appellant filed a suit on 21.12.2000 challenging the order of punishment. Both the trial Court as also the first appellate Court held that the suit was barred by time. Counsel for the appellant submits that in the case of constable Tarsem Lal, who was accused of the same misconduct and was awarded the same punishment, the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 29.05.2000 has reduced the punishment to one of censure. The appellant filed the suit after the Financial Commissioner reduced Tarsem Lal's punishment, as a fresh cause of action accrued to challenge the Regular Second Appeal No. 320 of 2008 -2- order of punishment. It is, therefore, submitted that the suit could not be dismissed as barred by time. Counsel for the respondents, however submits that limitation for filing of the suit commenced on 18.01.1996 or on 25.06.1996. The suit was filed on 21.12.2000 and was clearly barred by time. It is submitted that the reduction of punishment to Tarsem Lal would not give rise to a fresh cause of action to the appellant to challenge the order of punishment imposed on him. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. Admittedly, the order of punishment is dated 18.01.1996. The appellant's revision was dismissed on 25.06.1996. The suit filed on 20.12.2000 was, therefore, clearly barred by time. The contention that as punishment of his co-accused, Tarsem Lal, was reduced to one of censure, it would give rise to a fresh cause of action and, therefore, extend the period of limitation cannot be accepted as the punishment was reduced after the expiry of the period of limitation and, therefore, would not extend the period of limitation in the appellant's case. As a result, the findings of fact recorded by the courts below that the suit is barred by time does not call for interference. As no question of law muchless a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Liberty is however, granted to the appellant to file a mercy petition before the Financial Commissioner, in accordance with the rules. October 22, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE