Dismissal of an employee post-acquittal is illegal if not communicated as per the mandated rules, and presumption of communication without evidence is erroneous.

JUDGMENT

Namit Kumar, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.10.1990, passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, whereby suit for declaration filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 24.04.1999, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby appeal preferred by the appellant also met the same fate.

2. Parties to the lis are being referred to as per their status before the trial Court. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration pleading therein that he was working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the Animal Husbandry Department, Punjab. On 22.07.1977, he was apprehended under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 5(l)(a) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment/order dated 21.04.1981. In appeal, plaintiff was acquitted of the charges by this Court vide order dated 09.02.1983. It was further pleaded that after acquittal, plaintiff was entitled to be reinstated in service, however, no such order was passed by the department in spite of repeated requests by the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that when father of the plaintiff approached the department, he received notification dated 02.03.1984 on 24.04.1987 vide which he was dismissed from service. Plaintiff claimed that the said order was illegal, null and void as no charge-sheet or show-cause notice was issued to him and no departmental enquiry was conducted and the order was passed in utter violation of the terms of the service of the plaintiff.

3. Upon notice, defendant filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit of the plaintiff was time-barred and was not maintainable; no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff and no valid legal notice under Section 80 CPC was issued. It was stated that father of the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit. It was further stated that plaintiff never made any representation to the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department for restoration in service. Suit of the plaintiff was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties. It was further stated that after the plaintiff was convicted and sentenced, defendant took disciplinary action against the plaintiff who was dismissed from service in accordance with Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the "1970 Rules"). Plaintiff never approached the defendant after he was acquitted by the High Court vide judgment dated 09.02.1983.

4. Plaintiff filed replication reiterating the averments in the plaint and controverting those in the written statement.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: -

"1. Whether the order dated 02.03.1984 passed by the Secretary of the defendant is illegal, ultravires, unconstitutional and capricious? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit is within time? OPP

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable and justiciable? OPD

5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

6. Whether the father of the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPP

7. Whether notice under section 80 CPC is legal and valid? OPP

8. Relief."

6. The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.1990 on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiff filed an appeal. The learned lower appellate Court accepted the claim of the plaintiff on merits by holding that the dismissal after acquittal was wrong, however, dismissed the appeal by holding