R.S.A.No. 4288 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4288 of 2008 Date of decision: 11.2.2011 Bhupinder Singh ......Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.G.S.Bal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Satish Bhanot, Addl.A.G.Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging order dated 27.5.1993 whereby he was dismissed from service and the order passed in appeal dated 13.8.2002. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was working with the defendants as a Head Constable. Vide impugned order dated 27.5.1993, plaintiff was dismissed from service without following the rules and principles of natural justice. The plaintiff R.S.A.No. 4288 of 2008 2 preferred a departmental appeal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.8.2002. No presenting officer was appointed by the punishing authority to conduct the enquiry proceedings on behalf of the department. The Enquiry Officer performed the duties of enquiry officer as well as presenting officer. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff had absented himself from duty and had gone abroad without seeking requisite permission. The plaintiff was dismissed from service after due enquiry. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration to the effect that impugned order dated 27.5.1993 is illegal, null and void? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief that he be deemed to be on duty as Head Constable with continuity of service? OPP 3. Whether suit is maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has served the notice under Section 80 CPC to the defendant from filing the present suit? OPP 5. Whether the suit is filed within limitation? OPP 6. Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPP R.S.A.No. 4288 of 2008 3 7. Whether plaintiff has left the country for Canada without permission Ex.India leave, if so, its effect ? OPD 8. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2007. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 5.6.2008 passed by District Judge, Gurdaspur. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case, the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 27.5.1993. There is nothing on record to suggest as to whether the plaintiff had filed the appeal against the dismissal order within the stipulated period. Vide order dated 13.8.2002 appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed being time barred as well as on merits. In order to substantiate his case, plaintiff was required to establish that he had filed the suit within the period of limitation. The impugned dismissal order was passed in the year 1993, whereas, the suit was filed in the year 2002. A reminder for deciding the appeal was sent on 27.1.1997 but the date when the alleged original appeal was filed is not on record. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. It is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff has to plead and prove his R.S.A.No. 4288 of 2008 4 case and has to stand on his own legs. Hence, it was for the plaintiff to establish that his suit was within the period of limitation but he had failed to do so. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 11, 2011 anita