The main legal point established in the judgment is the three-year limitation period for filing a suit for declaration in cases of service termination, as per the provisions of the Limitation Act and relevant Supreme Court judgments.

JUDGMENT :

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.05.1993 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Hissar, as well as against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1992 passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge II Class, Hissar, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff – Manohar Singh (since deceased) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 13.06.1978 passed by defendant No. 2 terminating his services was wrong, null and void, against law and principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside. It was pleaded that he was appointed as an Auditor in the Department of Cooperative Societies in the year 1956 and was promoted as Sub Inspector in that very Department in the year 1960 and thereafter posted as Inspector, Cooperative Societies in the year 1968. During the period August, 1974 to July, 1975, he was posted in Tosham Block, District Bhiwani. On a charge of embezzlement and misuse of official position, plaintiff and one Harbhaj Singh, Sub Inspector were placed under suspension and charge-sheeted. An enquiry was also ordered against the plaintiff and the aforesaid Harbhaj Singh on the basis of charge-sheet. A criminal case was also registered against the plaintiff and aforesaid Harbhaj Singh. Plaintiff and Harbhaj Singh were acquitted by the trial Court on 11.09.1980. On the basis of the report of Enquiry Officer, plaintiff was removed from service vide order dated 13.06.1978. It was pleaded that after their acquittal, Harbhaj Singh was reinstated into service, however, plaintiff was not reinstated.

3. Defendants filed written statement and denied allegations of the plaintiff. Plea was taken that the suit was barred by limitation.

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

1. Whether order dated 13.06.1978 Vide No. Admn/T214/24561-640 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which the services of plaintiff were terminated is wrong, null and void, and against the principles of natural justice? OPP

2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD

3. Whether the suit is time barred? 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 21.09.1992 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

6. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which also met the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 18.05.1993.

7. No one put in appearance on behalf of the appellant in spite of the last order wherein it was observed that no further adjournment shall be granted on the next date of hearing as the appeal is pending for the last 30 years.

8. Learned State counsel contended judgments of the Courts below are well-reasoned. She contended that claim of the appellants-plaintiff has rightly been rejected as the same was barred by limitation inasmuch as limitation prescribed for filing a suit for declaration for impugning the penalty imposed, is three years in view of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, however, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff after the lapse of more than twelve years. In support of her contentions, learned State counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar, 1991 (4) SCC 1.

9. I have heard learned State counsel and perused the record.

10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurdev Singh’s case (supra) has held that limitation to file a suit for declaration is three years. Relevant portion from the said judgment reads as under:

“4. First of all, to say that the suit is not governed by the law of limitation runs afoul of our Limitation