R.S.A.No.4330 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.4330 of 2008 Date of Decision : 12.08.2009 Ram Phal ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration challenging the order of punishment dated 30.09.1991, was dismissed. The plaintiff was charge-sheeted for consuming liquor while on duty; misbehaving with the companion Constable Amar Chand; throwing his rifle on platform at Kalanwali Railway Station and for remaining absent from his duty with 50 live cartridges. The order of dismissal was passed after conducting departmental enquiry giving opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses and to lead his evidence. Such order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was challenged in appeal, which was dismissed on 13.9.1992. The petitioner challenged the order in appeal by way of a revision, which was dismissed on 23.5.1994. Thereafter, the mercy petition filed by the petitioner, was dismissed on R.S.A.No.4330 of 2008 2 20.8.2001. The present suit for declaration was filed on 22.7.2003. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and also for the reason that there is no irregularity in the conduct of the Disciplinary Authority against the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant has unblemished service of 17 years prior to the order of punishment and that such aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority before the order of punishment was passed. The said argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived. The previous service rendered by the plaintiff is not relevant when the misconduct levelled against the plaintiff is proved. The charges levelled against the plaintiff, who is a member of police, are serious i.e. consumption of liquor while on duty, misbehaviour with companion Constable, leaving his fire arm at platform and absent from duty with 50 live cartridges. Therefore, the previous service, however, meritorious it may be, but the misconduct proved against the appellant is sufficient for the order of punishment passed by the Authority. Apart from the said fact, the fact remains that the order of punishment was passed on 30.09.1991. The departmental appeal and revision was dismissed way-back in the year 1994. The dismissal of mercy petition in the year 2001 will not confer any fresh cause of action as there was complete cessation of relationship of employer and employee in the year 1991 and affirmed in 1994. The present suit for R.S.A.No.4330 of 2008 3 declaration filed in the year 2003 is grossly barred by limitation as well. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 12.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE