JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J.

For convenience, parties herein are addressed as per the recitals before learned trial Court.

2. Having suffered concurrent adverse findings by the two Courts below, defendants(appellants herein)are in second appeal before this Court assailing learned trial Court judgment and decree dated 31.08.1994, as upheld by learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.09.1998.

3. Plaintiff/ respondent filed a suit at District Court, Ludhiana challenging order dated 09.12.1986 signed and issued by defendant No.3 (appellant No.3 herein)- Deputy Registrar (Admn.), whereby he was removed from service. He sought declaration to the effect that he is deemed to be in continuous service and thus entitled to all arrears and other consequential benefits.

4. Briefly stated facts, as noticed by Courts below are that plaintiff joined the appellant-Institute on 31.12.1976 as a Senior Technical Assistant. His services were regularized in the Department of Physics w.e.f. 01.03.1978. During November- 1984 riots, plaintiff and his family were uprooted as his house was burnt and belongings were looted. Consequently, he lodged FIR in Police Station, Ashok Vihar, Delhi where he recorded all the evidence. However, the administration merely issued him a cheque in the sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation.

4.1. Plaintiff in those circumstances submitted several representations for allotment of proper accommodation in IIT campus but to no avail.

4.2. He became mentally disturbed due to entire tragic mis-happenings. He then applied for one year's leave on extraordinary basis vide his application dated 04.07.1985 w.e.f. 22.07.1985, which was recommended by the Head of Department and Committee of Professors. In the meantime, on 30.07.1985, plaintiff got a telephonic message about his mother's serious illness at Ludhiana. He had to rush to Ludhiana after getting his leave duly recommended from the Head of Department. During his journey, he also fell ill. Due to these extraordinary circumstances of plaintiff, he shifted with his family to Punjab. He duly informed all these facts to the Head of Department. But, the Department issued him a charge-sheet and ordered departmental enquiry. Plaintiff could not appear before the enquiry officer due to his illness. Ultimately, vide office order dated 09.12.1986, his services were terminated.

5. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement and opposed the claim of plaintiff on various grounds. The jurisdiction of the Court at Ludhiana was strictly opposed. It is alleged that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Suit was barred as an efficacious remedy under the Institute of Technology Act, 1961 is provided for. Plea of estoppel was also taken saying that plaintiff went on unauthorized leave. Plaintiff's application for one year's leave was rejected vide order dated 01.08.1985. Thereafter he was duly called upon by defendants to join the duty and to explain the misconduct. Instead, he filed frivolous representations to defendants and started raising false pleas therein. It is alleged that despite notice plaintiff did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. It is not disputed that plaintiff applied for extraordinary leave for one year. However, plaintiff was duly informed that his leave had not been sanctioned. Accordingly, he was called upon to join the institution immed