Lakhi Ram vs State of Haryana and others

A.N. Jindal, J.

CM No. 2673-C of 2012

The application is for early hearing of the appeal. This appeal pertains to the year 1990.

In view of the averments made in the application, same is allowed and the main appeal i.e. Regular Second Appeal No. 315 of 1990 is taken up today itself.

Regular Second Appeal No. 315 of 1990

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.10.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred as ''the plaintiff'') against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.1986 passed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Narnaul, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration.

Plaintiff joined the Police Department as a Constable on 19.11.1962 and continued in service up to 30.08.1969. He tendered his resignation on 30.06.1969, which was accepted and he was relieved from service on 30.08.1969. Thereafter, he applied for re-enrollment as Constable on 22.12.1969 and was accordingly, re-enrolled in service on the same day. Thereafter, the plaintiff was selected to take up the bugler''s course at Nilokheri on 01.05.1970. But, he showed his unwillingness to undergo the said course and submitted his resignation on 12.03.1970. On this, he was told to remain at the station of his posting in the Police Line, where he remained posted till 12.05.1970 when he was asked to hand over his kit and clear all the outstanding dues, as his resignation was accepted with effect from 12.05.1970. The said order has been challenged by the plaintiff by filing a suit for declaration.

Upon notice, the defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred as ''the defendants'') contested the suit by stating that the plaintiff himself had tendered his resignation on 12.03.1970, which was accepted on 12.05.1970. The representation made by him before the Inspector General of Police was also rejected on 27.04.1972.

From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

Whether the order of termination of the plaintiff dated 12.03.1970 is null, void and not binding upon the plaintiff being illegal, malafide, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

Whether the suit is time barred? OPD

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Relief.

The trial Court dismissed the suit on 17.03.1986. The first Appellate Court also affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal on 26.10.1989.

The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration in the year 1981 i.e. after 11 years of his termination. The first Appellate Court has held that the suit was hopelessly time barred as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has primarily contended that the plaintiff was never terminated from the service legally and order of termination dated 12.05.1970 was totally contrary to the Rules.

The case of the plaintiff is that he was terminated from service, whereas the defendants have contended that the plaintiff himself tendered his resignation on 12.03.1970, which became operative on 12.05.1970. Thereafter, he was relieved from service after his resignation was accepted. The entry (Ex.D1) in the Order Book, which has been signed by the then Superintendent of Police, indicates that the plaintiff had, in fact, submitted his resignation on 12.03.1970 and it was accepted and became operative with effect from 12.05.1970. Thakur Dutt (DW1) had also made statement from ''fauji misal'' of the concerned official while stating that the record was misplaced for which, the departmental enquiry was conducted against Parkash Chand, the then O.A.S.I. and was awarded censure punishment. Krishan Kumar (PW-3) has also stated that the relevant file of the official has also been misplaced. He has also deposed that there was an entry regarding resignation of the plaintiff, which was accepted on 12.05.1970.

Notwithstanding the fact that the file pertaining to resignation of the plaintiff cold not be proved, yet the suit is hopelessly time barred, as he filed the present suit after eleven years of his termination from service. No substantial question of law arises for determination.

Dismissed.