Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050735
2024:PHHC:050735
RSA-1504-1993 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(123)
RSA-1504-1993
Date of decision:- 16.04.2024
Amarjit Singh ... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. H.R.Brinda, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Amrita Garg, AAG, Punjab
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court seeking
modification of the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate
Court.
2. Brief facts may be noticed.
3. Plaintiff-appellant, who was working as a Conductor with the
Transport Department, Punjab, was served with three show cause notices in
the years 1983, 1985 and 1986 to which he submitted his replies. By virtue
of orders dated 15.12.1983, Ex.P-6, 27.09.1985, Ex.P-4 and 13.01.1986,
Ex.P-5, punishments of stoppage of increments were imposed. Claiming
that the punishment orders were served upon him in December, 1984,
October, 1985 and February, 1986, respectively, he filed a suit for
declaration to the effect that the orders are null and void and for
consequential relief.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050735
2024:PHHC:050735
RSA-1504-1993 -2-
4. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendants-respondents by
filing a written statement, wherein various preliminary objections,
including that of limitation, was taken. It was submitted that the orders had
been passed after complying with the principles of natural justice and
considering the response filed by the plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings
of the parties, issues were framed and after evidence was led, Trial Court by
judgment dated 24.10.1990, decreed the suit and declared all the three
orders as void. In first appeal, preferred by the defendants, the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court was upheld in so far as orders, EX.P-4 and
Ex.P-5 are concerned, but in so far as order dated 15.12.1983, Ex.P-6 is
concerned, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the suit
was barred by limitation. In this backdrop, plaintiff-appellant is before this
Court in the present second appeal.
5. Counsel for the appellant has emphatically argued that order
dated 15.12.1983, Ex.P-6, was served upon him in December, 1984. He has
relied upon the judgment of this Court in Makhan Singh Versus The State
of Punjab and others, 2009 (4) RSJ 59 and has made a reference to para 4
of the pleadings to buttress his submissions.
6. Arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties have been
considered and record has been examined.
7. In para 4 of the plaint, plaintiff has pleaded as under:-
"4. That the defendants served upon the plaintiff
show cause notices in the year 1983, 1985 and 1986. The
plaintiff submitted his replies to the said show cause
notices but the punishing authorities without considering
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050735
2024:PHHC:050735
RSA-1504-1993 -3-
those replies of the plaintiff, stopped two increments of the
plaintiff vide order No.20725/T.I.dated 15-12-83, two
increments vide order No.14878/T.I. dated 27-9-85 and one
increment vide order No.650/T.I. dated 13-1-86,
respectively, which were communicated to the plaintiff in
the months of December 1984, October 185 and Feb. 1986,
respectively."
8. In their written statement, defendants have replied as under:-
"4. That Para No.4 is admitted to the extent that the
Show Cause notices and the orders alleged in this para
were passed by the punishing authority but rest of the para
is denied. The punishing authority duly considered the
replies filed by the plaintiff before awarding the
punishments."
9. From a perusal of the respective stand of the parties as
reproduced above, it is evident that the service of order, Ex.P-6, upon the
appellant in December, 1984 has been denied by the respondents. As the
parties were at variance, a specific issue (issue No.3) was framed.
Although, the Trial Court returned the finding under issue No.3 in favour of
the plaintiff, but the Lower Appellate Court on the basis of the material
before it came to the conclusion that there is nothing on the record to show
that the said punishment order was served on the appellant in December,
1984. The onus to prove that the suit was within limitation was on the
plaintiff. In ocular evidence before the Trial Court, there is not even a
whisper in the deposition of the plaintiff, as to the date on which order,
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050735
2024:PHHC:050735
RSA-1504-1993 -4-
Ex.P-6, has been served upon him. He has, therefore, failed to support the
stand taken in the pleadings.
10. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and
others Versus Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1 and State of Punjab and
another Versus Balkaran Singh, (2006) 12 SCC 709 that limitation for
instituting a suit for declaration is three years under Article 58 of the
Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. As the impugned order, Ex.P-6, was
passed in December 1983 and the suit was instituted in January, 1988, the
suit was clearly barred in so far as order, Ex.P-6, is concerned. This Court
does not find any ground to interfere in the well reasoned judgment passed
by the Lower Appellate Court, which deserves to be upheld.
11. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
16.04.2024
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
