PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. versus B.S. AULAKH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 09-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND 
MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. 
v. 
B.S. AULAKH AND ORS. 
APRIL 9, 1997 
[S.C. AGRAWAL ANDS. SAGHIR AH!v1AD, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
A 
B 
Deputation-Ozaracte1istics of-Employee after discharge from an es-
C 
tablishment appointed in another establishment initially on probation and 
then on regular basis-Held: the subsequent employment was not Oil deputa-
tion. 
Limitation Act, 1963 : 
Suit-For declaration that discharge from service was invali~esolu­
tion dated 20.12. 1977 assailed in civil suit filed on 28.10. 198rSuit sought to 
be brought within limitation Oil the basis of order dated 5.9.1983 which was 
found to be forged and fab1icated-Held : Suit bmred by limitation-Se1vice 
Law. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 195. 
Prosecution-Procedure f 01~Employer filed an application in High 
Cowt under S. 195 for initiating oimillal proceedings against employee for 
submitting forged documents, but application dismissed by High Court-On 
Supreme Court's direction Distlict Judge submitted report that such docu-
mellts were forged-Employee's objections against said report rejected and 
report accepted-Registrar of High Cowt directed to take nccessmy steps to 
file a criminal complaint in competent court. 
Practice and Procedure : 
Advocate-Discharge of-By party--Conditiolls for accepting dis-
charge-Neither Advocate's 'no objection' recorded 011 application for dis-
charge nor did he appear after a pmticular stage of proceedings-Held: It was 
not possible to pass an order on the application-However, party heard in 
person. 
747 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 3 S.C.R. 
Findings off act-lntelference with-By Supreme Court-Findings of 
lower courts based on documents found by Supreme Court to be 
forged--Held: such findings not sustainable and hence reversed. 
The respondent was appointed as Plant Protection Expert in the 
Punjab State Co-operative 
Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. 
(MARKFED). The said appointment was on probation for a period of one 
year. Before completion of the period of probation, the respondent was 
discharged from service. The respondent filed an appeal to the Registrar 
of Co-operative Societies and during the pendency of the said appeal the 
respondent was appointed as Plant Protection Officer in Punjab State 
C Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills (SUGARFED). Under the said 
order of appointment, 50 per cent of the pay and allowances of the 
respondent were to be paid by MARKFED. The respondent was confirmed 
on the post of Plant Protection Ollicer is SUGARFED. By a Resolution 
dated 20.12.1997, the post of Plant Protection Officer in SUGARFED was 
D abolished and the services of the respondent were terminated. 
Being aggrieved the respondent filed a civil suit on 28.10.1983 for a 
declaration that .his discharge from service was invalid. The trial court 
dismissed the suit. The trial court held that the suit was barred by 
limitation inasmuch as the impugned Resolution dated 20.12.1977 came to 
E 
the knowledge of the respondent at least between 28 to 30.12.1997 and the 
suit was filed on 28.10.1983. The trial court also rejected the claim of the 
respondent that at the time of the passing of the impugned Resolution the 
respondent was on deputation with SUGARFED and was an employee of 
MARKFED. The Addi. District Judge while allowing the appeal filed by 
F the respondent held that the suit was not barred by limitation on the 
ground that the appeal filed by the respondent against the Resolution with 
regard to his claim to be an employee of MARKFED was disposed of by 
the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies by order dated 5.9.1983 and the 
suit WdS filed soon thereafte1· on 3.10.1983. The Addi. District Judge also 
found that the respondent was an employee of MARKFED and was on 
G deputation with SUGARFED. In order to come to the said finding the 
Addi. District Judge placed reliance on certain documents. 
The appellant filed a second appeal before the High Court against 
the said judgment of the Addi. District Judge. Before the High Court the 
H appellant contended that the documents on which the Addi. District Judge 
PB. STAIB CO-OP SUPPLY AND MKTG. FEDERATION LTD. v. B.S. AULAKH 
749 
placed reliance were forged and fabricated. The appellant also filed an 
application under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for 
initiating criminal proceedings against the respondent for having 
produced forged documents. T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.