The termination of the plaintiff's service was found to be in violation of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, specifically Rule 8(11), 8(16), and 8(18).

GURMIT RAM, J.

This regular second appeal is preferred by the aforementioned appellants, who were defendants before the learned trial Court, against the judgment and decree dated 8.1.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the appeal of the respondent - herein (plaintiff) was accepted, judgment and decree dated 9.5.1992 passed by the learned trial Court, Gurdaspur were set aside and suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs throughout.

2. The case of the respondent – herein (plaintiff) before the learned trial Court in nutshell was that he joined the State Transport Department as a Conductor in the year 1972 under the control and supervision of defendant No.2. He continued to be in service uptil 22.12.1988, when defendant No.2 passed an order regarding his removal from service vide his endorsement No.5692-93/Steno/GM dated 22.12.1988. This order was alleged to be illegal, null and void, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, mala fide, non-speaking etc. etc., inter alia, on the grounds that charge-sheet issued to the plaintiff was illegal being passed on mere suspicions; that he was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself since he was not supplied with copies of the record on the basis of which charge-sheet was framed and that his reply to charge-sheet was not considered at all. It was further his case that his alleged misconduct was relating to year 1980, whereas the impugned order against him was passed in the year 1988 i.e. after a gap of more than eight years and that too when he was already punished in the year 1984 vide order dated 12.10.1984. He was not associated with any inquiry after 22.1.1986 qua the allegations on the basis of which he had been punished. It was further his plea that at the time of passing the above-said order dated 12.10.1984, he was told that all the previous cases pending against him till date of that order had been filed. He did not appear before the Inquiry Officer for the reason that he was not competent to conduct the inquiry against him when he was no more in service after 12.10.1984. The order dated 22.12.1988 had been passed against him since he was successful in previous litigation and he received salary for the period for which he remained unemployed for the reason of order dated 12.10.1984 which was declared illegal by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Batala on 22.1.1986. He served a notice on the defendants as required under the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short – CPC) but to no effect, which necessitated to file the instant suit.

3. On receipt of notice, appellants – herein (defendants) appeared and filed joint written statement wherein they took preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the suit and that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. On merits, the passing of impugned order against the plaintiff was admitted which was alleged to be legal, correct and also according to the provisions of the service rules. Reply filed by the plaintiff to the charge-sheet was duly considered by the competent authority. It was further their plea that services of the plaintiff were terminated on 12.10.1984 in an other case and he was taken back in service on 20.6.1986 as per order dated 22.1.1986 passed by the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Batala. The Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 23.10.1984 held the plaintiff guilty. The competent authority passed the impugned order after duly considering the reply of the plaintiff to show-cause notice. He was afforded full opportunity and was also heard in person before passing the impugned order. Service of notice under Section 80, CPC, was admitted, but its legality was denied.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

1. Whether impugned order is illegal, null and void? OPP.

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to consequential benefits? OPP.

3. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD.

4. Whether jurisdiction of t