VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/defendant impugning the concurrent Judgments of the courts below; of the Trial Court dated 18.2.2012 and the First Appellate Court dated 14.8.2014; by which the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff (since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs) was decreed by declaring as null and void the termination from service Order dated 28.4.2000 and that the respondent/plaintiff was to be treated as continuing in service w.e.f 8.4.2004 with all consequential benefits.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff was employed as a helper with the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU). Delhi Vidhut Board (DVB) is the successor entity of the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU). Respondent/plaintiff was charge-sheeted vide Memo dated 15.10.1987 that he had not reported to duty from July, 1986 and had thereafter got his card punched on different dates but had actually not reported for duty. Respondent/plaintiff filed a civil suit in October, 1989 seeking injunction against the departmental proceedings, and in which suit interim injunction was granted staying the charge sheet, however, this suit was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution by an Order of the Civil Judge dated 30.11.1998. This order of dismissal in default is admittedly final as the earlier suit filed in October, 1989 was never got restored by the respondent/plaintiff. Appellant/defendant on 28.4.2000, after dismissal of the earlier suit on 30.11.1998, passed an Order dated 28.4.2000 of termination of services of the respondent/plaintiff. I may note that the date of the Memo/Charge Sheet is 15.10.1987, and that till when the earlier suit was filed in October, 1989, the duly contested enquiry proceedings were completed, and the Enquiry Report dated 22.5.1988 was submitted, and thereafter a Show Cause Notice dated 3.8.1989 by the disciplinary authority was issued to the respondent/plaintiff pursuant to the enquiry report holding the respondent guilty. Obviously, it is at that stage in October, 1989 that the earlier malafide suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff, and which ultimately was not pursued and hence dismissed in default in November, 1998. The Order of termination of services of the respondent/plaintiff dated 28.4.2000 was duly served upon the respondent/plaintiff, and photocopy of which is proved on record as part of the photocopy of the entire enquiry proceedings file exhibited collectively as Ex.DW1/1 (Colly.) (Ex.DW1/1 has been wrongly typed as “de-exhibited” instead of “exhibited” in the cross-examination of DW1 as after the expression Ex.DW1/1 OSR is written and which means Original Seen and Returned and also so noted in para 6 of the judgment of the trial court where the photocopy of the entire enquiry proceedings file is referred to be proved as Ex.DW1/1). The Order dated 28.4.2000 has been served by registered AD post upon the respondent/plaintiff on 17.5.2000. Mysterious indeed are however the ways of the government organization such as DVB, that in spite of the Termination Order dated 28.4.2000, the respondent/plaintiff kept on working and receiving his wages and then in April, 2004 it was realized that actually the respondent’s/plaintiff’s services were terminated vide Order dated 28.4.2000. Therefore, a Letter dated 5.4.2004/Ex.PW1/12 was served upon the respondent/plaintiff intimating the respondent/plaintiff of the factum with respect to the passing of the Termination Order dated 28.4.2000. Respondent/plaintiff consequently filed the present suit challenging the Order of termination dated 28.4.2000 and prayed for the relief of his being treated as continuing in service with consequential benefits by declaring the Order of terminat