The trial Judge single Judge of the High Court by his judgement dated March 22, 1994, though held that the termination order was unconstitutional, since he was terminated without companypliance of Article 311 2 of the Constitution, dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.
The respondent after his acquittal by the criminal companyrt laid the suit in forma pauperis on August 13, 1965 seeking declaration that the termination of his service was wrong, unconstitutional, that he should be deemed to have companytinued in service and that he was entitled to Rs.84,000/ by way salary and damages by way of expenses incurred by him to defend the criminal cases etc.
On appeal, the Division Bench held that the suit was number barred by limitation for the reason that he had laid the suit after the rejection of his application for reinstatement and companysequent to the acquittal by the criminal companyrt on May 8, 1964 and that, therefore, it was within limitation.
Thereafter, the Executive Engineer discovered on October 6, 1956 that he had the appointment on producing false certificates.
The admitted facts are that the respondent came to be appointed on March 7, 1956 as Section officer in the Central Public Works Department.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated March 22, 1994 made by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in RFA OS No.
We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.
The suit was decreed.
Leave granted.
27/94.
