Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
NAMIT KUMAR
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Punjab State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Namit Kumar, J.
This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.01.1993 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Faridkot, whereby appeal preferred by the respondent State against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.1991 passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge 3rd Class, Moga, vide which the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for declaration was decreed, has been accepted and suit of the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed.2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff was working as conductor in Punjab Roadways at Moga. The General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga vide order dated 28.5.1981 imposed upon the plaintiff the penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that no enquiry was conducted against him. The show cause notice is illegal, wrong and defective in nature. Copies of documents were not supplied along with the show cause notice. No personal hearing was given to the Plaintiff. The impugned order is alleged to be cryptic and non- speaking. Notice under Section 80 CP
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.
Even void orders must be challenged within the prescribed limitation period; failure to do so results in the suit being barred.
The inquiry officer's failure to adhere to procedural rules invalidated the punishment order, necessitating remand for a fresh inquiry rather than reinstatement.
The right to sue accrues when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe the right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted, and the limitation for filing suits to challenge the ....
The court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff as valid due to the lack of a timely appeal and the nature of the allegations against him, affirming the importance of adhering to statutory limitation....
The court upheld the validity of the departmental inquiry, emphasizing adherence to procedural rules and the principle that courts should not interfere with factual findings unless they are perverse.
A suit for declaration challenging a promotion is time-barred if filed beyond the statutory limitation period of three years, and promotions must adhere to qualifications and conduct.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
