R.S.A. No. 828 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 828 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.2.2009 Dalwinder Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Ms. Gagan Geet Kaur, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 14.12.2006 and 2.6.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction claiming that he was entitled to join back the duty as Special Police Officer in the Police Department, stands dismissed. The plaintiff/appellant was appointed as S.P.O. in the Police Department. He remained absent from duty since 8.2.1995. Thereafter it was in the year 2005 i.e. after expiry of 10 years, that legal notice under Section 80 CPC was issued for taking him back on duty. However, as no reply was received from the Department, the plaintiff/appellant filed the suit. The suit was contested by the defendant/respondents, wherein R.S.A. No. 828 of 2008 (O&M) -2- plea was taken that the plaintiff/appellant has no locus standi to maintain the present suit, as the Special Police Officer has no right to the post. It was also pleaded that the suit was time barred, as his services stood terminated by way of order dated 14.3.1995 on account of absence from duty. The learned Courts below by way of concurrent finding of fact decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the appellant/plaintiff and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief claimed. The learned Courts also held that the appellant failed to challenge the order Ex. D-4 within a period of three years i.e. the limitation prescribed thus, issue No. 3 was also decided against the plaintiff/appellant. Issue Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were not pressed thus decided against the defendants. Consequently, the suit was dismissed and appeal also met with the same fate. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that Ex. D-4 was punitive in nature, therefore, could not have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant, therefore, the order is to be treated to be void ab initio. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to declaration by ignoring the order of termination. However, on consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant/plaintiff admittedly absented from duty and it was only after a period of 10 years that he sought to join duty by issuing notice under Section 80 CPC. The plea prima facie was time barred. It was for the appellant R.S.A. No. 828 of 2008 (O&M) -3- to have challenged the said order within period of limitation. Having not doing so, there is no ground whatsoever to grant relief, claimed by the appellant in the suit. The finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence, which is in consonance with settled law, and does not merit interference in regular second appeal. The appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 10, 2009 R.S.