MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.

Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.02.1998, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide which his first appeal, against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.1992, rendered by learned Senior Sub-Judge, Patiala, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit for declaration on 11.08.1988 to the effect that action of the defendants-respondents while not allowing him to join his duties on the post of clerk as well as the charge-sheet dated 30.10.1985, enquiry proceedings and consequential orders for withholding the salary are illegal, null and void and against the service rules. Further prayer is that he is entitled to all the service benefits along with continuity of service and mandatory injunction against the defendants-respondents to give him all benefits for the above-said post by treating him in service right from February, 1972 along with interest @ 18% per annum till its realization.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that he was appointed as a clerk in the office of Municipal Committee, Patiala-defendant (respondent No. 2) in the year 1972 on regular basis and later on he was confirmed and while working as such he proceeded on leave w.e.f. 03.02.1982. Thereafter, he reported for joining the duties to the Executive Officer, but was not allowed. It is further averred that the plaintiff appellant again reported for joining on 01.10.1985, but he was neither allowed to join his duties; nor joining report was received in the concerned office. Consequently, the plaintiff-appellant sent his request under a registered cover on 01.10.1985 to the defendants-respondents and in response thereto, the Executive Officer, vide memo No. 2950 dated 18.10.1985 asked the appellant-plaintiff to explain about his leave. It is further alleged that without waiting for the reply to the memo dated 18.10.1985, the Executive Officer, issued charge-sheet vide memo No. 3051 dated 30.10.1985 regarding the absence from duty w.e.f. 03.02.1982. It is further pleaded that before receipt of charge-sheet, the plaintiff-appellant submitted his reply dated 02.11.1985 to the concerned officer in response to the earlier notice memo dated 18.10.1985 to the effect that he had been sending his leave applications to the defendants respondents time and again; but no action has been taken against him on account of his absence from duty and he has a legal right to join his duties. Despite the above factual position, defendants/respondents did not allow him to join the duties on the ground that disciplinary proceedings had already been started against him. Thereafter, the plaintiff-appellant submitted his reply dated 13.11.1985 in response to memo dated 30.10.1985 and also attached a copy of his earlier reply dated 02.11.1985 by submitting that memo dated 30.10.1985 was received by him only on 13.11.1985. Thereafter, the defendants-respondents vide memo No. 4114 dated 10.01.1986 appointed Balbir Singh, Superintendent as Enquiry Officer and Amar Nath Tyagi, as Presenting Officer, for conducting regular departmental enquiry regarding the charge-sheet issued vide memo dated 30.10.1985. Consequently, the plaintiff-appellant received intimation from the Enquiry Officer to attend the enquiry proceedings on 16.01.1986, which was duly attended by him and thereafter he again received memo dated 04.03.1986 for attending the enquiry on 12.03.1986. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant never absented from the enquiry proceedings, but no witness was examined by the defendants-respondents against him and the enquiry was completed in the middle of the year 1986. Thereafter, the plaintiff-appellant did not receive any communication or intimation in connection with charge-sheet dated 30.10.1985 as well as inquiry proceedings and he repeatedly visited the office of defendants-respondents