Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

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 CPC was served upon the defendant before the filing of the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement taking the preliminary objections that the suit is time barred and that no valid notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon the defendants. On merits, it has been stated that the plaintiff was working as conductor in Punjab Roadways at Moga. The impugned order is stated to be legal, valid and according to rules. It has been admitted that no departmental enquiry was conducted. All other assertions of the plaints have been denied.

4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating the contents of the plaint.

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

1. Whether the order dated 28-5-1981 recorded by G.M. Punjab Roadways Moga is illegal null and void as alleged? If so its effect? OPP

2. Whether valid notice U/S 80 CPC was served on the defendant? OPP

3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

4. Relief

6. The parties led their respective evidence. The Court of first instance, after appreciating evidence on record decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.1991.

7. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which has been accepted vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.1993.

8. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contended that judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court is perfectly legal and valid inasmuch as the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was hopelessly time-barred, the same has rightly been dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court.

10. I have heard learned State counsel and perused the record.

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Gurdev Singh and Ashok Kumar, 1991(4) SCC 1 has held that limitation to file a suit for declaration is three years. Relevant portion from the said judgment reads as under: -

"4. First of all, to say that the suit is not governed by the law of limitation runs afoul of our Limitation Act. The Statute of Limitation was intended to provide a time limit for all suits conceivable. Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides that a suit, appeal or application instituted after the prescribed "period of limitation" must subject to the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. Section 2(J) defines the expression "period of limitation" to mean the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule for suit, appeal or application. Section 2(J) also defines, "prescribed period" to mean the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Court's function on the presentat