Gokal Chand Mital, J.:— On 21.6.1977, Ajit Singh, who was driver in Punjab Roadways posted under the General Manager, Tarn Taran, applied for leave for 120 days to go abroad with effect from 1.7.1977 On the foot of the application, the General Manager made an endorsement that leave be granted if rules permit. The driver went abroad. It is a matter of dispute between the parties whether leave was granted or not but the fact remains that some time before 18.4.1978, the department wrote to the driver to report for duty and without taking any proceedings under the service-rules, or issuing charge sheet or show-cause notice to the driver, the General Manager terminated his services by order dated 18.4.1978 On 31.5.1983, the driver filed a suit for declaration that order dated 18.4.1978 was void ab initio as it was passed without following the procedure laid down in the service rules and without affording opportunity of hearing to him. The trial Court dismissed the suit as time barred although it found that the order of termination of services of the driver was illegal as neither the procedure under the service rules was followed, nor opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. On driver's appeal, the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the order of termination of services was void ab initio and to challenge such order, held that no limitation was involved. As a result the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. This is second appeal by the State of Punjab.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the matter, I am of the view that there is no scope for interference in this appeal. It is not disputed that under the service rules no proceedings were taken for taking departmental action against the driver for his absence from duty.
3. It is also not disputed that no hearing was afforded to the driver. Accordingly, the General Manager had no jurisdiction to pass order dated 18.4.78 and the said order has rightly been held to be void by the lower Appellate Court. Once the order is void, limitation would not apply and the plaintiff was well within his rights to claim the relief which has been granted to him by the lower Appellate Court.
4. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed with costs.
5. Appeal dismissed.