Constable dismissed after ex-parte departmental proceedings challenged dismissal via declaration suit over ten years later. First appellate court had upheld the dismissal on limitation grounds. Second appeal dismissed, confirming suit was time-barred and the 1991 representation created no fresh cause of action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
RSA No.1237 of 1997 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
109
RSA No.1237 of 1997 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2026
......Appellant
MAJOR SINGH ......Appellant Vs PUNJAB STATE THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, PUNJAB AND ORS. ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Arun Jindal, Addl. A.G., Punj a b. ****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral)
Th e appellant-plaintiff is in appeal before this Court. First appeal f i led by the respond e nts-defendants was accepted b y the learned First Appellate C o urt thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties are be i ng referred to as per their statu s in the Civil Suit.
[2]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment a nd decree dated 13.11.1996 passed by the Court o f learned Additional District Ju d ge, Jalandhar (here i nafter to be referred as the “First Appellate Court” ), whereb y an appeal filed at the instance of respondents-de f endants against the judgment a nd decree dated 01.12.1992 passed by the Cou r t of learned Sub Judge II Cl a ss, Jalandhar (here i nafter to be referred as the “Trial Court”) decreeing the suit for declaration file d by the appellant-plaintiff, was accepted; thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Tri a l Court; consequently, the suit for declaration pre fe rred at the instance of the appe l lant-plaintiff was dismissed.
MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.13 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
2
RSA No.1237 of 1997 (O&M)
[3]. Br i efly stating, a suit for declaration was filed at the instance of the appellant/plaint i ff with the averments that he joined the PAP as Constable on 28.01.1964 at J a landhar and since then was wo r king to the entire satisfaction o f his superiors. Due to his medical condition, t h e appellant-plaintiff was ta k ing treatment from the Govt. Rajindra Hospital, Patiala w.e.f. 02.09.1980. It w as pleaded that du e to ex-parte departmental proc e edings, the appellant-plaintiff w as dismissed from service vide order dated 07.05. 1 981 passed by respondent No. 4 on the basis of v a rious alleged charges. It was further averred that the ex- pa rte proceedings held against the appellant-plaintiff were against the provision of R ule 16.24(1) of the Punjab Police Rules as no opp o rtunity of hearing was provide d to him. Against the order of dismissal, appellant- p laintiff made representation to the Hon’ble Gover n or of Punjab, however, vide o rder dated 20.08.1991 passed by respondent No. 2 , the same was rejected. [4]. Up o n notice, respondents/defend a nt(s) appeared and filed wri t ten statement takin g preliminary objections of li m itation. It was pleaded that the appellant-plaint i ff was dismissed from serv i ce on 07.05.1981 and order of dismissal was s e rved upon his brother on 11.0 5 .1981 in the presence of Sarpa n ch of his native vi l lage. The present suit, having b een filed only on 09.12.1991, w as thus well beyo n d the prescribed period of limi t ation of three years. It was fur t her averred that t h e work and conduct of the appellant-plaintiff had not been satisfactory, an d that he had willfully remai n ed absent from duty. Despite the issuance of re p eated notices, the appellant-p l aintiff never resumed his duties; consequently, e x-parte departmental proceedi n gs were initiated against hi m in accordance wit h law, and he was rightly dis m issed from service by respon d ent No.4 vide order dated 07.05.1981. It was furthe r pleaded that the appellant-plai n tiff
MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.13 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
3
RSA No.1237 of 1997 (O&M)
never preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority in terms of the rele v ant rules governing his service conditions.
[5]. On the basis of pleadings of the pa r ties, the learned trial Court fra m ed
the following is s ues:-
[6]. Th e learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree d a ted 01.12.1992, decreed the suit in favour of the ap p ellant-plaintiff.
[7]. Ag g rieved thereof, the responden t s-defendants filed the first appeal, which was acc e pted vide judgment and decr e e dated 13.11.1996 passed by the learned First A p pellate Court and consequently, the suit for declaration preferre d at the instance of the appellant-plaintiff was dis m issed. Hence, the present Reg u lar Second Appeal.
[8]. I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book and records of the case as well. [9]. A perusal of the record sh o ws that the services of the appellant/plaint i ff, who was working as a Const a ble with the Punjab Armed Pol i ce, were terminate d pursuant to a regular inquiry v ide order dated 07.05.1981 pa s sed by respondent N o.4–The Commandant, 36th B a ttalion, PAP, Bahadurgarh, Dis t rict
MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.13 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
4
RSA No.1237 of 1997 (O&M)
Patiala. No sta t utory appeal, as contemplate d under Rule 16.29 of the Pu n jab Police Rules, 1 9 34 (Volume II), was preferred b y the appellant/plaintiff against the said order. It w a s only after a lapse of more tha n ten years that a representation w as filed by the ap p ellant/plaintiff before the Hon' b le Governor of Punjab, which w as forwarded to t h e Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt., and w as rejected vide or d er dated 20.08.1991.
[10]. By way of suit for declaration, t he appellant/plaintiff assailed the validity of bot h orders dated 07.05.1981 and 20.08.1991, passed by respon d ent Nos.4 and 2 r e spectively. It is not in dispute that the order of dismissal d a ted 07.05.1981 was duly served upon the appellant / plaintiff through his brother, in the presence of the Sarpanch of his native village. F or a period of more than ten y e ars thereafter, no c h allenge was laid to the said o r der, nor was any statutory ap p eal preferred under Rule 16.29 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Volume II). T he orders came to be assailed only by way of th e present suit, filed on 09.12.1 9 91, more than ten y ears after the date of dismiss a l and was, thus, clearly barred by limitation.
[11]. Fu r ther, mere fact that the representation filed by the appellant/plaint i ff before the Hon'ble Govern o r of Punjab in 1991 came to be decided by respondent No.2 on 20.08.1991 co u ld not give rise to a fresh caus e of action in his f a vour, since the representation was not backed by any statu t ory mechanism, wh e ther by way of rules or instruct i ons, issued by the State of Punj a b. [12]. In v iew of the discussion made h e reinabove, finding no illegalit y or perversity with the findings of the fact recor d ed by the learned First Appel l ate Court, there bei n g no misreading or any mis-interpretation of the pleadings and the evidence availa b le on record; the present appeal, being devoid of merits, is her e by
MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.13 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
5
RSA No.1237 of 1997 (O&M)
dismissed, whil e upholding the judgment and d ecree dated 13.11.1996 passe d by the learned Firs t Appellate Court dismissing the suit for declaration preferred at the instance of the a ppellant-plaintiff.
[13]. All pending application(s), if any, s hall stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA) July 08, 2026 JUDGE Atik Wh e ther speaking/reasoned Yes/No Wh e ther reportable Yes/No
MOHMED ATIK 2026.07.13 12:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit filed more than ten years after dismissal from service, without statutory appeal, was barred by limitation?
Whether the Governor representation decided in 1991 gave rise to a fresh cause of action?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Major Singh
Punjab State through Secretary, Department of Home, Punjab
Harkesh Manuja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
