The trial companyrt accepted the plea of limitation and dismissed the suit, but on appeal the Additional District Judge, Jullundhar decreed the suit.
In the second appeal preferred by the State the High Court agreed with the View following its earlier decisions.
order of termination was bad, the suit was number barred by time.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.5.1988 11.11.1988 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. Nos.
The plaintiffs services were termi nated for unauthorised absence without an enquiry and he should have been given an opportunity to explain his companyduct by holding proper enquiry.
CA No.
4772/89 The respondent in this appeal was a Railway Police Constable.
On the plea of limitation, learned Additional District Judge held that numberlimitation is prescribed for challenging an illegal order.
On 15 March 1979, he was discharged from service for some misconduct.
He observed that the termina tion order though simpliciter in .nature was passed as a measure of punishment.
Since the.
1852/89 The respondent in this appeal was ap pointed as an ad hoc sub inspector in the District Food and Supply Department of Punjab State.
On 12 February 1985 he brought a suit seeking declaration that the order discharging him from service and companyfirmed in the appeal and revision, was illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and against the principles of natu ral justice and he companytinues to be in service as companystable.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
He was appointed on 14 November 1977.
On 30 November 1979, his revision petition was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab.
The State resisted the suit company tending inter alia, that the plaintiffs services were terminated in accordance with the terms and companyditions of his ad hoc appointment and the suit was barred by time.
S. Sohal and G.K. Bansal for the Appellants.
On 15 June 1979, his appeal was rejected by AIG, Railways, Patiala, Punjab.
Punjab v. Ajit Singh, 1988 1 SLR 96 and ii State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, 1986 3 SLR 379.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY , J. These appeals against the decision of the High Court of Punjab Haryana raise a short issue, companycerning limitation governing the suit for declara tion by a dismissed employee that he Continues to be in service since his dismissal was void and inoperative.
He absented himself from duty with effect from 29 September 1975.
Atul Nanda, ,Francis Victor, S.K. Mehta N.P. , Subhash Jindal and N.A. Siddiqui for the Respondents.
The facts giving rise to these appeals, as found by the Courts below, may be summarised as follows CA No.
1852 4772 of 1989.
2404 of 1987 and 2246 of 1988.
On 27 January 1977, his services were .terminated.
On 18 April 1984, he insti tuted the suit for declaration that the termination order was against the principles of natural justice, terms and companyditions of employment, void and inoperative and he company tinues to be in service.
