Non-production of impugned orders under challenge makes the suit not maintainable. Challenging the wrong order in the suit cannot set aside the dismissal from service.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This is plaintiffs Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal. The Sub Judge 1st Class, Kaithal vide its judgment dated 22.3.1983 decreed the suit filed by the appellant declaring the order dated 6.7.1980 passed by the Managing Committee, Hindu Higher Secondary School, Kaithal (hereinafter described as respondent No. 1) and the other dated 14.10.1980 passed by the District Educational Officer, confirming the said order, as illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The said judgment of the trial Court, in appeal by respondent No. 1, was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff appellant was dismissed. Against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, this Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant.

2. In this suit, the plaintiff-appellant had challenged the order dated 6.7.1980 passed by respondent No. 1 vide which a show cause notice was issued to him by respondent No. 2 proposing quantum of punishment sought to be inflicted upon him after the completion of departmental enquiry against him. He had also challenged the order dated 14.10.1980 passed by the District Education Officer, Kurukshetra vide which the proposal of the Managing Committee to dismiss the appellant from service was approved. The learned first Appellate Court dismissed the suit of the appellant on the ground that copies of both the aforesaid orders, which were challenged by the appellant, had not been produced on record by the appellant, though he had challenged the legality of these orders. It was held that in view of the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was mandatory for the appellant to produce the copies of the orders which were subject matter of challenge in the suit. Secondly, it was held that the appellant did not challenge his dismissal order, copy of which is Ex.PA on the record. Rather, he had challenged the order vide which a show cause notice was issued to him. A perusal of the order, which had been challenged in the suit, shows that it only contains proposal for inflicting the punishment of dismissal on the appellant and he was further asked to submit his representation, if any, within seven days of the receipt of notice against the proposed punishment of dismissal. The order of dismissal of the appellant from service is contained in Ex.P-1, which was conveyed on 16.10.1980. The said order was not challenged by the appellant in the suit filed by him. It was held that though the trial court declared the order dated 6.7.1980 as illegal and set aside the same, but this will not prove the case of the appellant because the order dismissing him from service still stands and was not challenged by him. It was also held by the learned first Appellate court that the suit filed by the appellant seeking declaration of the dismissal order as illegal and with consequential relief of reinstatement is not maintainable. The appellant can only file the suit for damages and not for reinstatement.

3. Shri D.S. Bali, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri D.V. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant made three-fold submission. Firstly, he submitted that non-production of the copies of the impugned orders is of no consequence as there was a specific averment in the plaint challenging these orders and there was also a specific denial by the defendants. Once, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, an issue has been framed, then it is immaterial whether the copies of the impugned orders have been placed on the record or not. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of this Court in Faqir Singh v. Sadhu Singh and Anr., (1971)73 P.L.R. 608.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and I do not find any substance in the same. In a suit for declaration in which a specific order passed by an authority is challenged, the copy of the said order must be placed on record, particularly