JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The instant regular second appeal is preferred by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2002 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the suit seeking declaration of the impugned order dated 03.07.1997 passed by the appellant-defendant No.3 vide which the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed from service as illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional, has been decreed and the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2008 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court vide which the appeal preferred by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2002 passed by the learned trial Court stood dismissed.

2. In brief, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff was appointed as Sweeper in the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Gurdaspur on permanent basis and was discharging his duties honestly and diligently. However, vide order dated 03.07.1997 passed by the appellant-defendant No.3, the respondent-defendant was dismissed from service on the allegations that during the period from 29.08.1994 to 23.10.1994, he had failed to perform his duties and caused damage to the furniture lying in the class room intentionally. He was issued memo dated 11.10.1994 appellant-defendant No.3 informing him about his misconduct under Rule 3(1) (2) of the CCS Conduct Rules, 1984 stating therein that on 23.10.1994 at about 0800 hours when the Principal went to his office to check note books of the students, Kartar Singh, a 'Group D' employee entered into the office of the Principal and respondent-plaintiff was standing outside the office. He started abusing the Principal in Punjabi and gave lalkara by saying Kartar Singh kill him. He manhandled the Principal and in order to save himself, Principal rushed outside and raised alarm. On hearing voice of the Principal, Dharam Singh PGT came at the spot and saved the Principal from both of them. As the act and conduct of the respondent-plaintiff was unbecoming of a government servant, a departmental enquiry was conducted in which he was found guilty and vide order dated 03.07.1997, his services were terminated. Hence, the suit was filed.

3. The appellants-defendants appeared and contested the suit by raising preliminary objections qua maintainability and mis-joinder of parties. On merit, it was stated that services of the respondent-plaintiff were terminated after conducting a departmental enquiry wherein charges framed against him were proved. He was given due opportunity to defend himself and thus, no cause of action arose to the respondent-plaintiff.

4. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court framed as many as five issues including relief. Parties led their respective evidence and on appreciation of the documentary as well as oral evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit and the appeal preferred against the said judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court also failed.

5. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-defendants argued that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff on the date of filing of the said suit, keeping in view the notification dated 17.12.1998 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) whereby 01.01.1999 has been specified as the date on and from which the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1985) were made applicable to Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, meaning thereby, the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan was brought within the ambit of the Central Administrative Tribunal w.e.f. 01.01.1999 and thus, the suit ought to have been transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal in terms of Sections 28 and 29 of the Act of 1985. In support of his contention, reliance is placed upon the order dated 03.04.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5108 of