RSA No. 1056 of 2009 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1056 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.03.2011. Sukhjinder Singh .......Appellant Vs. State of Punjab & another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Satish Bhanot, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit challenging the order, whereby he was dismissed from service. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he joined as a constable on 29.7.1991 with the respondents. On 18.8.1993, a criminal case was registered against the plaintiff and he was put under suspension on 21.8.1993. Vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.1995, plaintiff was convicted in the criminal case and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/-. The appeal filed by the plaintiff, against the said judgment of his conviction, was dismissed by this court on 26.4.2000. The plaintiff was released from the jail on 4.5.2000 and came to know about the dismissal order. Hence, the suit was RSA No. 1056 of 2009 (O&M) - 2- filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 27.10.1995, whereby he was dismissed from the service. Defendants, in their written statement, took the preliminary objections that the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. The fact that the plaintiff joined as a constable on 29.7.1991 was admitted. It was further stated that a criminal case was registered against the plaintiff and on this account, he was put under suspension. The plaintiff was held guilty of commission of offence of gang-rape and was convicted and sentenced qua the said offence vide judgment and order dated 30.9.1995. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 11.2.2003, Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by Additional District Judge vide order dated 27.4.2005. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. In the present case, the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 27.10.1995. The plaintiff filed the suit on 12.10.2000 challenging the said order. Although, a specific issue qua limitation was not framed by the trial court, yet an objection RSA No. 1056 of 2009 (O&M) - 3- was taken by the defendants in their written statement that the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. Parties knew their case and had led their evidence in order to substantiate their respective pleas. It has been held in, State of Punjab Vs. Gurdev Singh Ashok Kumar 1991(5) S.L.R. 1, 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.” Thus, the plaintiff was required to challenge the order, whereby he was dismissed from service, within the stipulated period of limitation. However, the plaintiff had filed the suit after the limitation had expired. In these circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 08, 2011 Gurpreet