Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042187
-1-
RSA-862 of 1997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-862 of 1997
Reserved on: 04.03.2024
Pronounced on: 21.03.2024
Harvinder Singh
......Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - None for the appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This regular second appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 29.11.1996 passed by the Court of learned
District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby appeal filed by the
respondents/State against the judgment and decree dated 21.05.1994,
passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge IInd Class, Jalandhar, has
been accepted and judgment and decree dated 21.05.1994, whereby suit
of plaintiff/appellant was decreed, has been set aside.
2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made
as per their status in the civil suit. Brief facts of the case are that the
plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order No.1667-
74/Steno dated 17.08.1987 and order No.10992/JR-A-4 dated
25.07.1991 passed by defendants No.3 and 2, respectively, were wrong,
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042187
RSA-862 of 1997
illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, null and void and against the
principles of natural justice and not binding upon the plaintiff
consequently the plaintiff was entitled to reinstatement in service with
all benefits attached to the post. It was pleaded that plaintiff was
working as constable in Jalandhar District. He was allotted No. 645.
He was entitled to the protection under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934
and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. His services were
terminated by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, vide
order No. 1667-74/Steno 17.08.1987 without conducting any enquiry.
He was not charge sheeted. He has been removed from service with an
ulterior motive. The punishing authority has violated the provisions of
Rule 16.19 of the Punjab Police Rules. He was acquitted vide judgment
dated 02.08.1990 by Additional Judge Designated Court, District Jail,
Nabha. He filed civil writ petition No.1846 of 1991, which was
disposed of vide order dated 04.02.1991 with a direction to dispose of
the appeal within six months. In view of the said order, the defendant
No.2 had passed order bearing No.10992/ J.R.A.4 dated 25.07.1991.
The appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation. But in view of
the order of this Court, the appeal was to be deemed within time.
Thereafter, appellant again approached this Court by way of writ
petition in the year 1992, which was dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to file a regular suit on the same cause of action. After serving
notice under section 80 C.P.C. the suit was filed.
3. Upon notice, written statement was filed raising objection
that the suit was barred by time. As per Rule 16.30 of Punjab Police
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042187
RSA-862 of 1997
Rules, the appeal was required to be preferred within one month of the
date of the original order exclusive of the time taken to obtain a copy of
the order. The plaintiff had links with the terrorists, desperate anti-
social and anti-national elements. He had rightly been removed from
service under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. It was not
reasonably practicable to hold departmental enquiry or to serve any
charge sheet or show cause notice upon him. It was neither in the
public nor in the interest of the Government to do so. The departmental
enquiry has rightly been dispensed with.
4. Replication was filed and the parties had come to trial on
the following issues :-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration
as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
3. Whether the notice under Section 80 CPC is illegal
and invalid? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file
the present suit? OPD
5. Relief."
5. The parties led their respective evidence. The Court of
first instance, after appreciating evidence on record vide judgment and
decree dated 21.05.1994 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
6. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of
the trial Court, appellants preferred an appeal before the lower appellate
Court, which has been accepted vide judgment and decree dated
29.11.1996.
7. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellants.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042187
RSA-862 of 1997
8. The matter pertains to year 1997 and was admitted on
20.10.1997.
9. Learned State counsel submitted that suit filed by the
plaintiff was barred by limitation. Plaintiff was indulging in anti social
activities and due to this reason, the impugned order was passed
without holding a departmental enquiry and provisions adhereing to the
Punjab Police Rules. He has produced a copy of order dated
28.04.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby SLP (C)
No.20819 of 2011; SLP (C) No.20863 of 2011 and SLP (C) No.21074
of 2011, filed by similarly situated employees were dismissed.
10. I have heard learned State counsel and perused the record.
11. The impugned order was passed by the punishing
authority on 17.08.1987 (Ex.P1) whereby plaintiff was dismissed from
service and it was held that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an
enquiry in a manner provided under the Rules as the plaintiff was
indulged in anti-social and anti-national activities. Thereafter,
appellant filed CWP No.1846 of 1991, which stood disposed of on
04.02.1991, with a direction to decide the appeal within six months and
further directed the appellant to file an application for condonation of
delay to the competent authority by making an appropriate case for
showing sufficient reason for delay. The appeal was filed which stood
dismissed on 22.07.1991 on the ground of limitation. He again
approached this Court by filing a writ petition in the year 1992, which
was dismissed as withdrawn to file a civil suit on the same cause of
action. Plaintiff filed civil suit challenging the order dated 17.08.1987
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042187
RSA-862 of 1997
on 05.06.1992. The suit could have been filed by the plaintiff within
three years of the passing of the impugned order as required under the
Limitation Act. Nothing has been placed on record to indicate that
appellant was precluded in any manner for filing the civil suit within
time. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff was hopelessly barred by
limitation.
12. In State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh Ashok Kumar,
1991(5) S.L.R. 1, it has been held 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."
13. The fact that the plaintiff was acquitted in the criminal
case would not automatically extend the period of limitation. Since the
suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation, learned District Judge had
rightly accepted the appeal filed by the State and dismissed the suit of
the plaintiff. Moreover, as per Rule 16.30 of the Punjab Police Rules,
an appeal could have been filed within a month from the passing of the
impugned order, however, the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also
barred by limitation.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that suit of three similarly
situated employees, namely, Saroop Singh; Gurdev Singh and Atma
Singh has been dismissed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and attained
finality.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042187
RSA-862 of 1997
15. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law
arises for consideration in the present appeal, which would warrant
interference by this Court.
16. Dismissed.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
21.03.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
