A suit challenging disciplinary orders is barred by limitation if not filed within three years, and due process must be followed by the employer in disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

Instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.08.1993 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.1991, partly decreeing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-appellant, has been allowed and the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed with costs.

2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit. The facts relevant for disposal of this regular second appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order bearing Nos.1260/TA dated 22.02.1983, 751/TA dated 04.02.1983, 700/TA dated 04.02.1983, 4227/28/TA dated 27.07.1983, 4224-25/TA dated 27.07.1983, 4218-19/TA dated 27.07.1983, 6760-63/Steno dated 04.04.1985, 2778-80/TA dated 23.09.1986, 4609-11/TA dated 16.05.1987, 4605-07/TA dated 16.05.1987 and 5688-92/Steno dated 20.06.1988 passed against him, stopping annual increments with/without cumulative effect, be declared illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff, and the arrears thereof and other benefits withheld vide impugned orders, be granted to him. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that he is employed as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-I. The plaintiff has been performing his duties with due diligence. However, some false report have been made against the plaintiff by checking staff due to some ulterior motive. On the basis thereof, the plaintiff was served with charge-sheet(s)/show cause notice(s). However, no necessary material as required under the provision of law, was supplied to the plaintiff. No reasonable opportunity of being heard, was ever afforded to the plaintiff. Ultimately, the impugned orders stopping his increments with or without cumulative effect were passed. The plaintiff requested many times to withdraw the above-mentioned illegal orders, but to no avail.

3. Upon notice of the suit, defendants appeared and filed their separate written statements taking preliminary objections on the grounds of jurisdiction and time barred. On merits, it is pleaded that the impugned orders were passed in accordance with the provisions of law and prior to passing the same, the plaintiff had been afforded an opportunity of being heard.

4. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned trial court:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and the consequential relief prayed for?OPP

2. Whether the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD

3. Whether the suit is within time?OPP

4. Relief.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence led by the respective parties, the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 13.08.1991, partly allowed the suit of the plaintiff and had set aside the orders dated 04.02.1983, 04.02.1983, 22.02.1983, 27.07.1983, 27.07.1983, 27.07.1983, 23.09.1986, 16.05.1987, 16.05.1987 and 20.06.1988, however, suit qua the order dated 04.04.1985 was dismissed.

6. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the respondents filed appeal before the Appellate Court, which has been allowed, vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.1993.

7. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff.

8. Learned State counsel contended that after appreciating the material and evidence available on record, the Lower Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. There is no illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court. Furthermore, claim of the appellant-plaintiff qua the orders dated 04.02.1983, 04.02.1983, 22.02.1983, 27.07.1983, 27.07.1983, 27.07.1983 and 23.09.1986 is liable to be dismissed by applying the doctrine of delay and laches for the reason that the limitation prescribed for filing a suit for declaration for impugning the said