http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: G.S. AULAKH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/04/1997

BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.C. AGRAWAL, J. :      This appeal  by special  leave arises  out  of  a  suit [Civil Suit No. 337/83] filed by B.S. Aulakh, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter  referred to  as ’the  plaintiff’) wherein he sought a declaration to the effect that the Resolution dated December 20,1977  passed by  the Board  of Directors  of the Punjab state  Federation of  co-operative sugar  mills  Ltd. [for short ’SUGARFED’], respondent No.2 herein, by which the plaintiff was  relieved of  the  post  of  plant  protection officer and  the  said  post  was  abolished,  was  invalid, illegal and  without jurisdiction.  In  the  said  suit  the plaintiff also  claimed that  he was  the employee of Punjab state co-operative  supply &  Marketing Federation Ltd. [For short ’MARKFED’],  appellant herein, and that he was only on deputation with SUGARFED.      The facts briefly stated are as following :      By order  dated December  12,1972,  the  plaintiff  was appointed as  Plant protection  Expert in  the MARKFFD.  The said appointment  was on probation for a period of one Year. Before the  completion  of  the  period  of  probation,  the plaintiff was  discharged from  service of  MARKFED by order dated June  12,1973. The  plaintiff filed  an appeal against the  said   order  of   discharge  with   the  Registrar  of cooperative societies  and during  the pendency  of the said appeal by  order dated  November 8,1973  he was appointed on the post  of Plant  Protection, 50  per cent  of the pay and allowances of  the plaintiff were to be paid by MARKFED. The plaintiff was  confirmed on  the post  of  plant  protection officer in  SUGARFED by  order dated  February 7,  1975.  By order dated  December 20,1977,  The post of Plant protection officer in  SUGARFED was  abolished and  the services of the plaintiff  were  terminated.  The  plaintiff  filed  a  writ petition [Civil writ petition No. 1828/77] in the High court of Punjab  & Haryana. The High court, however, felt that the writ petition  was highly belated and thereupon the same was withdrawn  as  prayed  by  the  learned    counsel  for  the plaintiff. On October 28,1983, the plaintiff filed the civil suit of  the plaintiff  and it  was held  that the  suit was barred by  limitation inasmuch  as the  impugned  Resolution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

dated December  20,  1977  came  to  the  knowledge  of  the plaintiff at  least between December 28, to 30, 1977 and the suit was  filed on  October 28,1983.  The trial  court  also rejected the  claim of the plaintiff that at the time of the Passing of the impugned resolution he was on deputation with SUGARFED and was an employee of MARKFED. The appeal filed by the appellant  against the  said judgment of the trial court was ,  however,    allowed  by  the  Addl.  District  Judge, Chandigarh, by  judgment dated  October 11,  1991. The Addl. District Judge  held that  the  suit  was    not  barred  by limitation on  the ground  that  the  appeal  filed  by  the plaintiff 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 September 5,1983. and  the suit  was  filed  soon  thereafter  October 3,1983.  The  Addl.  District  Judge  also  found  that  the plaintiff was and employee of MARKFED  and was on deputation with  SUGARFED   with  effect  from  November  11,1973  till December 20,1977.  In order  to come to the said finding the Addl.  District  Judge  placed  reliance  on  the  following documents : 1]   Letter   [Exhibit PW  8/12] from  Shri S.L.  Kapur, the then  Registrar,   cooperative  Societies,   and  ex-officio Administrator  of  MARKFED,  addressed  to  the  chairman  , SUGARFED wherein it was stated:      "Shri Aulakh will be an employee of      Marketing Federation  but will work      in Punjab  state Federation  of Co-      operative sugar  mills Ltd. Till he      is recalled". 2]   Letter dated  May 4,  1975 [Exhibit  PW 8/14]  from the Establishment officer  on behalf  of the  Managing  Director MARKFED, addressed  to the Chairman, SUGARFED, wherein it is stated :      "The  Management   agrees  to   his      proposed confirmation  on 7.5.75 as      P.P.E ,  MARKFED in SUGARFED as per      existing arrangement.  However,  he      will continue  in  your  Federation      till he is recalled." 3]   order dated  April 26, 1977 [Exhibit PW 8/19] passed by the Chief  Minister of  Punjab holding  that  the  order  of termination/discharge dated  June 12, 1973 was null and void and the  Plaintiff  is  an  employee  of  MARKFED  as  Plant Protection officer  and  that  he  was  on  deputation  with SUGARFED.      MARKFED filed  a second  appeal [R.S.A.NO.2240 of 1991] in the  High court  against the  said judgment  of the Addl. District Judge.  During the  course of  hearing of  the said appeal and  application was filed under order 41 Rule 27 CPC for placing on record the correct copy of the letter written by Shri  S.L. Kapur and for calling the original letter from the office  of SUGARFED.  It  was  submitted  on  behalf  of MARKFED. It  was submitted  on behalf  of MARKFED  that  the letter [Exhibit  P.E. 8/12]  filed by  the plaintiff  and on which reliance  had been placed  by the Addl. District Judge to hold  that the  plaintiff was  an employee of MARKFED and was on  deputation with  SUGARFED, was a fabricated document and that  the original  letter does not contain the sentence "Shri Aulakh will be an employee of Marketing Federation but will work  in Punjab  state Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.  till he is recalled" and instead it contains the sentence "However,  Shri Aulakh  will be  working as a whole time employee of the Punjab state Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills  Ltd." In support of his aforesaid submission, a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

photostat copy  of the  original letter  of Shri S.L. Kapur, addressed to  the Chairman of SUGARFED, as procured from the record of  SUGARFED, was,  submitted in  the High court. The said contention  was, however,  not  accepted  by  the  High court. The said contention was, however, not accepted bu the High court  in view  of the  other  two  documents,  namely, letter dated  May 4,1975  [Exhibit P.W.  8/14] sent  by  the Establishment officer,  MARKFED to  he Chairman of SUGARFED, and the  order of  the chief  Minister of Punjab dated April 26, 1977  [Exhibit P.W.  8/19]. The  High court  also placed reliance on  the order  dated September 9,1983 [Exhibit P.W. 8/29] passed  by the Joint Registrar, cooperative societies, on the  appeal filed  by the plaintiff, for holding that the suit  was  not  barred  bu  limitation.  By  judgment  dated February 21,  1994, the  High  court  dismissed  the  second appeal filed  bu MARKFED.  A review  petition was  filed  by MARKFED in  the High  court wherein  it was pointed out that the other  documents,  namely,  letter  dated  may  4,  1975 [Exhibit P.W.  8/14]  and  order  dated  September  5,  1983 [Exhibit P.W.  8/29]  were  also  Fabricated  documents.  In support of  the said  review petition  a number of documents were filed  and it  was prayed  that the  matter may be duly enquired into.  The High  Court did  not consider  it fit to entertain the  review petition and the same was dismissed by order dated May 6,1994. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High  court   dated February 21, 1994 MARKFED, has filed this appeal.      During the course of hearing of the appeal, this court, after taking note of the submissions of shri D.S. Nehra, the learned senior  counsel appearing for MARKFED, felt that the question as  to whether  the letter [Exhibit P.W. 8/12] from Shri S.L.  Kapur to  the Chairman,  SUGARFED and  the  order dated [Exhibit P .W. 8/29] dated September 5, 1983 passed by the Joint Registrar (planning) had been forged or fabricated needs examination. The court also felt that the confusion in respect of  two orders  dated April  22, 1977  and April 26, 1977 said  to have  been passed  by the  Chief  minister  of Punjab should  be removed.  The court,  therefore, by  order dated  February   7,1996  directed   the   District   Judge, Chandigarh to record a finding on the following questions ;      "1.  Is Document No.1 [Exhibit P.W.      8/12] a  true copy  of the original      letter sent  of it  is a fabricated      copy of the original letter ?      2.   Are   the    Documents   Nos.2      [Exhibit P.W.  8/14] and 3 [Exhibit      P.W.  8/29]  false  and  fabricated      documents?      3.   Where both  or any  one of the      two orders  dated  April  26,  1977      (Document No.4) and April 22, 19977      (Annexure  P-6  to  C.W.P  1828  of      1977) passed  by the chief minister      of Punjab  and, if  so,  which  was      that order?.      In pursuance of the said direction, the District Judge, Chandigarh, after  recording the  evidence  adduced  by  the parties, has  submitted his  report wherein  he has recorded the following findings : [i]  Document No 1 [Exhibit P.W.. 8/12] is not the true copy of the  original letter sent and the possibility of the same having been  fabricated by  inter colating  the words  "Shri Aulakh will  be an employee of Marketing Federation but will work in  Punjab state Federation of co-operative sugar Mills Ltd. Till  he is  working as  a wholetime  employee  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

punjab state  Federation of  co-operative sugar  Mills Ltd." cannot be ruled out. [ii] Document No.2  [Exhibit P.W..  8/14] and  Document No.3 [Exhibit P.W.. 8/29], are also false and fabricated. [iii] The  originals of  the orders dated April 26, 1977 and April 22,  1977 had  not been produced and the plaintiff had not led  any evidence  nor had he made any effort to produce the originals before him and it was not possible to say that any of  the two  orders was  passed by the chief Minister or not.      The District   Judge  has observed  that all  the  four documents referred  to in  the order  of  this  court  dated February 7,  1996 are  copies which were produced before the trial    court     bu    Chanan     Ram    P.W.     8    and are...............stated  to  be  attested  by  Shri  Kishan Chand, Superintendent  of the office of the Registrar, coop. societies. The  District Judge  has stated  that earlier the plaintiff had  sought summon  for securing  the presence  of Kishan Chand  as his  witness but  since the process serving agency was  having difficult  in   effecting the  service on Kishan Chand  as his  witness but  since the process serving agency was having difficulty in effecting the service agency was having  difficulty in  effecting the  service on  Kishan Chand as  his witness  but since  the process serving agency was having  difficult in  effecting the  service  on  Kishan Chand,  bailable  warrants  were  issued  for  securing  his presence and  that one  Shri G.S  Sandhu, Advocate, appeared and stated  before the  court  that  Kishan  Chand  has  not appeared because  he was  told by the plaintiff that he need not came  to the  court as  his name  had been  dropped. The District Judge  was of  the view  that Kishan  chand was  an important witness  who had  attested the  disputed documents and should  be examined  as court  witness even  though  the plaintiff did  not want  to examine  him. A  direction  was, therefore, issued  to secure the presence of Kishan Chand as a court  witness and  he was examined as a court witness. In his statement,  Kishan chand  categorically stated  that the attestations on  documents [Exhibits  P.W.. 8/12, P.W.. 8/14 P.W.8/19 and P.W.. 8/29] do not bear his signatures.      As regards  document no.1  [Exhibit  P.W..  8/12],  the District Judge has stated that in the writ petition filed by him the  plaintiff had  attached [as  Ex.P.3] a  copy of the letter  written   by  Shri  S.L.  Kapur,  Registrar  of  the Cooperative societies  and Administrator of MARKFED, to Shri O.G. Adya,  chairman of the SUGARFED and the contents of the said letter  were not the same as the contents of the letter Ex.P.W.   8/12 subsequently produced. The District Judge has also stated that MARKFED had brought on record Ex.RW12/1 and its original  [marked D3]  in support  of its assertion that Ex.P.W. 8/12  is not  the correct  copy of the communication addressed by  Shri S.L. Kapur to Shri O.G. Adya and that the plaintiff has  not brought on record the document form which the copy  Ex.P.W. 8/12  could have  been prepared.  In these circumstances.  The   District  Judge   has  held  that  the possibility of  Ex.P.W.8/12 having been fabricated could not be ruled out.      As regards document No.2 [Exhibit P.W.8/14], the letter dated May 4, 1975 from the Establishment officer of MARKFED, the District  Judge has  pointed out  that the  said  letter bears the  signatures of  Shri Tarlochan  Singh was  not the Establishment officer  of MARKFED  after February  1974  and that   at the  time when  the said  document is said to have been sent  Shri Justine  was the  Establishment  officer  in MARKFED. It  has also been stated by the District Judge that in the  document  Ex.P.W.  8/14  the  telephone  numbers  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

MARKFED are  shown as  21681 to  21685 and the telex code is given as 0395 and that Joginder Singh Manocha R.W.5 has been examined to prove that telephone numbers of 27366, 27234 and 27235 on  April 15, 1976 and that B.S. Nayyar R.W.6 has been examined to  prove change  of Telex  code number from 039 to 0395 after March 7, 1980.      Having  regards  to  the  aforesaid  evidence  produced before him, the District Judge has stated that on May 4,1975 when the  letter Ex.P.W.8/14  is  said  to  have  been  sent neither  Shri   Tarlochan   Singh   was   serving   as   the Establishment officer  nor could the letter head on which it was written  have been  available because it would have been printed only  after March  7, 1980.  Since no  evidence  was brought  on   record  by  the  plaintiff  to  explain  these discrepancies, the  District Judge  has come not prepared at the time  when the  same is  purported to have been done nor had it  been signed  by the  person who  is stated  to  have signed.      As  regards   document  No.3  [Exhibit  P.W.8/29],  the District Judge  has found  that the order dated September 5, 1983 bears the signatures of Shri J.N. Vashisht described as joint Registrar  (planning) and  that MARKFED  had  examined Shri J.N.  Vashisht as  RW 11  and he has stated that he had not heard  any appeal filed by the plaintiff and that be has categorically stated  that the  order Ex.  PW 8/29  was  not passed by  him and  it does  not bear  his  signatures.  The services book  of Shri  J.N. Vashisht has also been produced to  prove   that  he  was  not  posted  as  Joint  Registrar (Planning) on  the date on which the order is stated to have been passed  by him.  In view  of  the  said  evidence,  the District Judge  has stated that document No.3 [Exhibit P.W.. 8/29] is a false and fabricated document.      As regards  the note  [Exhibit P.W..  8/19] dated April 26, 1977  of the  chief Minister,  Punjab and  another  note dated April  22, 1977  of the  chief Minister,  the District Judge has  stated that  Exhibit P.W..  8/19 is  a photo copy which has  been attested as a true copy like other documents by Kishan Chand who, in his signature on the attestation and that the  plaintiff has  not cared  to bring  on record  the original of  the said  document and since the attestation is not proved  it was  difficult  to record a finding in favour of the  plaintiff regarding  the authenticity  of  the  said document. According  to the  District Judge the position was not different as regards the note dated April 22, 1977.      A copy  of the  said report  of the  District Judge was furnished  to   the  plaintiff  and  he  has  submitted  his objection against  the same. The plaintiff is represented by Shri J.D.  Jain, Advocate.  He has  submitted an application for discharging  his advocate  but it  does not  contain  an endorsement of  " no  objection" by Shri Jain. Shri Jain has not been  attending the  court for  some time.  He  was  not present in the court when the appeal was taken up ever since the order  dated February 7, 1996 was passed. In the absence of Shri  Jain it  has not been Possible to pass any order on the application for discharge submitted by the plaintiff. We have, however,  heard the plaintiff who is present in person in support  of his objection on the report  submitted by the District Judge.      We have carefully considered the said objection against the findings  recorded by the Districted Judge in the raised by the  plaintiff are  without  any  substance  and  do  not detract from  the finding  recorded by the District Judge in his report which are fully supported by the evidence adduced before him. We, therefore, accept  the  said findings.      As a  consequence to  the acceptance  of  the  findings

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

recorded by  the District  Judge, it  must be  held that  no order was  passed by  the Joint  Registrar (planning) on the appeals of  the plaintiff on September 5, 1983 and since the appeal of  [Exhibit P.W..  8/29] that  was submitted  by the plaintiff and  which has  been  relied  upon  by  the  Addl. District Judge  as well  as the  high court to hold that the suit was  within  limitation,  is  a  false  and  fabricated document, it  must be  held  that  the  suit  filed  by  the plaintiff on October, it must be held that the suit filed by the plaintiff  on October  28, 1983 to assail the resolution of  SUGARFED   dated  December   20,  1977   was  barred  by Limitation.      Even on  the merits,  the plaintiff  cannot succeed  in view of  the fact  that his  case that after the order dated June 12,  1973 he  continued to  be in employment of MARKFED and that  he was  on deputation  in  SUGARFED  is  based  on Exhibit P.W..  8/12 and  Exhibit P.W.8/14.  In Exhibit  P.W. 8/12  the  words  "Shri  Aulakh  will  be  and  employee  of marketing  Federation   but  will   work  in   Punjab  state Federation of  co-operative Sugar  Mills  Ltd.  Till  he  is recalled" have been found to have been interpolated in place of the  words "However,  shri Aulakh  will be  working as  a wholetime employee  of the  Punjab state  federation of  Co- operative sugar  Mills Ltd.".  Similarly the letter [Exhibit P.W.8/14]  dated  May  4,  chairman,  SUGARFED  till  he  is recalled" has  been found  to be false and fabricated. there is no  reasons why  after his  discharge from  MARKFED under order dated  June 12,1973  the Plaintiff  should  have  been continued to  be in employment of MARKFED especially when by order dated  November 8, 1973 he had been appointed as plant protection officer in SUGARFED on probation and subsequently on regular  basis under  order dated  February 7, 1975. Shri Nehra has  also referred  to the  letter dated September 10, 1974 from  the Registrar, cooperative societies addressed to the plaintiff  whereby it  was intimated  that the plaintiff was a  directly appointed  employee of  SUGARFED and  not  a deputationist from  MARKFED. As regards the note [P.W. 8/19] of the  chief Minister,  Punjab dated April 26,1977 on which the reliance has been placed by the Addl. District Judge and the High court, it may be stated that there is inconsistency in the  case of  the plaintiff in this regard in view of two notes, one  dated April  22,1977 and  the  other dated April 26, 1977.  In the  writ petition he had relied upon the note of the chief minister of Punjab dated April 22,1977 while in the present  suit he  has relied  upon the note of the chief Minister dated  April 26,  1977. The  plaintiff has not been able to  produce the  originals of either of these two notes of the chief Minister of Punjab. No credence can be attached to the  document Ex.P.W.  8/19  that  was  produced  by  the Plaintiff which  purports to  be copy  attested to be a true copy by  Kishan Chand  who has denied having so attested the said document.      Taking into  consideration the  facts and circumstances referred to  above, we  are of  the view  that  the  finding recorded by the Addl. District Judge and the High court that even after his discharge from MARKFED under order dated June 12,1973 the  plaintiff  continued  to  be  and  employee  of MARKFED till  December 20, 1977 when the impugned resolution was passed  by the  SUGARFED and that he was only deputation with the  SUGARFED cannot  be sustained. It must, therefore, be held  that the  suit filed  by  the  plaintiff  had  been rightly dismissed by the trial court.      Before we  conclude ,  it is  necessary to  state  that MARKFED had  filed an  application in  the High  court under Section 195  Cr.P.C.  for  initiating  criminal  proceedings

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

against  the    Plaintiff  in  having  produced  the  forged documents. The  Said application  was dismissed  by the High Court by  the impugned  Judgment while dismissing the second appeal  of  MARKFED.  Since  it  has  been  found  that  the documents marked  as Ex.P.W.  8/12, Ex.p.w. 8/14 and Ex.p.w. 8/29 that  were produced  by the  Plaintiff were  false  and fabricated documents a case has been made out for initiating criminal proceedings against the plaintiff. The Registrar of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana is directed to take the necessary steps  to  file  a  criminal  complaint  in    the competent  court in that regard.      For the  reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed, the impugned  judgment of  the  High  court  of  Punjab  and Haryana dated  February 21,   1994 in R.S.A. NO.2240 of 1991 as well  as that  of the  Addl. District  Judge,  Chandigarh dated October  11, 1991 in C.A. NO. 197 OF 1990 (SS) are set aside and  the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. The appellant  will   be  entitled   to  the    costs  from  the Plaintiff, respondent No. 1 herein.