Holding

The suit was barred by limitation because the plaintiff was not an employee of MARKFED after his discharge, and the documents relied upon were forged, leading to the dismissal of the suit.

Summary

The plaintiff, B.S. Aulakh, was appointed on probation as Plant Protection Expert in MARKFED and discharged before completing probation. He was subsequently appointed Plant Protection Officer in SUGARFED, later confirmed, and his post was abolished by a resolution dated 20‑12‑1977. Aulakh filed a suit on 28‑10‑1983 seeking a declaration that his discharge was invalid, claiming he remained an employee of MARKFED on deputation to SUGARFED, which would affect the limitation period. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation; the Additional District Judge reversed, relying on documents that purported to show Aulakh’s employee status. The High Court upheld the limitation bar, again relying on the same documents. Aulakh alleged those documents were forged. The Supreme Court directed a district judge to examine the documents, who found them forged and fabricated. Accepting this finding, the Court held the suit was barred by limitation, set aside the lower courts' judgments, dismissed the suit, and ordered criminal proceedings under CrPC s.195 against Aulakh.

Issues considered

The plaintiff’s employment status at the time of the 1977 resolution – whether he was an employee of MARKFED on deputation to SUGARFED.
Whether the documents on which the lower courts relied were genuine or forged.
Whether the suit filed on 28‑10‑1983 was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether criminal proceedings could be initiated under CrPC s.195 for the alleged forgery.

Legislation cited

Subjects

limitationforged documentsdeputationservice lawCrPC s.195civil suitemployee statusco-operative societiesappellate jurisdiction

Judgment

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

APRIL 9, 1997
B
[S.C. AGRAWAL ANDS. SAGHIR AH!v1AD, JJ.)

Service Law :

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 :
D
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.
E
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- F
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 :
G
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. H
747
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A Findings offact-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.
B
(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 A
application under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for
initiating criminal proceedings against the respondent for having
produced forged documents. The Higb Court dismissed the second appeal
as well as the application for initiation of criminal proceedings against the
respondent. Hence this appeal.
B
During the course of hearing of the appeal the appellant-Federation
raised a plea that the respondent had produced forged documents which
were relied upon by the lower courts. This Court directed the District
Judge to examine whether the documents relied on by the Addi. District
Judge were forged or fabricated. The District Judge submitted a report C
that the said documents were forged and fabricated. A copy of the said
report was furnished to the respondent and he had submitted objection
against the same. The respondent had also submitted an application for
discharging his Advocate but it did not contain an endorsement of "no
objection" by the said advocate. The said advocate did not appear after a
particular stage of the proceedings. However, the respondent was heard in D
person.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. There is no reason why after his discharge from Punjab E
State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. (MARKFED), the
respondent should have been continued to be in employment of MARKFED
·especially when by an order he had been appointed as Plant Protection
Officer in Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.
(SUGARFED) on probation and subsequently on regular basis. [758-A-B]
F
2. The objections raised by the respondent against the findings
recorded by the District Judge are without any substance and do not detract
from the findings recorded by the District Judge in his report which are
fully supported by the evidence adduced before him. [757-C]

3. As a consequence to the acceptance of the findings recorded by the G
District Judge, it must be held that no order was passed by the Joint
Registrar (Planning) on the appeal of tbe respondent on 5.9.1983 and since
the order that was submitted by the respondent and which has been relied
upon by the Addi. District Judge as well as by the High Court to hold that
the suit was within limitation, is a .false and fabricated document, it must H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A be held that the suit filed by the respondent on 28.10.1983 to assail the
Resolution of SUGAIU'ED dated 20-12-1977 was barred by limitation.
(757-D-E]
4. In the absence of the Advocate of the respondent and without his
'no objection' certificate it is not possible to pass any order on the
B application for discharge submitted by the respondent. However, the
respondent was heard in support of his objections. [757-B]

5. It has been found that the documents produced by the respondent
were false and fabricated and, therefore, a case has been made out for
initiating criminal proceedings against the respondent. The Registrar
C of the High Court is directed to take necessary steps to file criminal
complaint in the competent court in that regard under Section 195 of the
Criminal Procedmc Code, 1973. [i58-H; 759-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5646 of
1994.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.94 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 2240 of 1991.

D.S. Nehra and P. Mahale for the Appellant.

E J.D. Jain, (NP), A.S. Chahil and Ms. S. Janani for the Respondent.

In-person for the Respondent No. 1.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F S.C. AGRAWAL. J. This appeal by sper:ial 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.
G (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
H SUGARFED.
PB. srATI! CO.OP SUPPLY AND M!."I'G. FEDERATION LTD. '· B.S. AULAKH (S.C. AGRAWAL,.l.J 751

The facts briefly stated are as follows : A

By order dated December 12, 1972, the plairitiff was appointed as
Plant Protection Expert in the MARKFED. 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 B
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 wa~
appointed on the post of Plant Protection Officer in SUGARFED. Under
the said order of appointment, 50 per cent of the pay and allowances of
the plaintiff were to be paid by MARKFED. The plaintiff was confirmed C
on the post of Plant Protection Officer in SUGARFED by order 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.
1828n7) in the High Court of Punjab & Hary-ana. The High Court, how- D
ever, 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 which has given rise to this
· appeal. The trial court by judgment dated November 20, 1987 dismissed
the said suit of the plaintiff and it was held that the suit was barred by
limitation inasmuch as the impugned Resolution dated December 20, 1977 E
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
employee of MARKFED. The appeal filed by the appellant against the F
said judgment of the trial court was, however, allowed by the Addi. District
Judge, Chandigarh, by judgment dated October 11,1991. The Addi. 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 G
the suit was filed soon thereafter on October 3, 1983. The Addi. District
Judge also found that the plaintiff was an 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 Addi.
District Judge placed reliance on the following documents : H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A (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
B work in Punjab Stale Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.
till he is recalled".

(2) Letter dated May 4, 1975 (Exhibit PW 8/14) from the Estab-
li..;hment Officer on behalf of the Managing Director, MARKFED, Ad-
C dressed 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 arrange-
ment. However, he will continue in your Federation till he is
recalled."
D
(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
E SUGARFED.

MARKFED filed a second appeal (R.S.A. No. 2240 of 1'191) in the
High Court agamst the said judgment of the Addi. District Judge. During
the course of hearing of the said appeal an application was filed under
On!t.:r 41 Ruif 27 CPC for placing on record the correct copy of the latter
F writtc1J by Shri S.L. Kapur and for calling the original letter from the office
qf SUGARFED. It was submiucd on behalf of MARKFED that the letter
(Exhibit P.W. 8/12) filed by the plaintiff and on which reliance had been
placed ny the Addi. District Judge to hold that the plaintiff was an
employee of MARKFED and was on deputation with SUGARFED, was
G a fabricalcd document and that the original letter does not contain the
scntcn1;c "Suit Aulakh will be an employee of Marketing Federation but
will work in Punjab State Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mill:, Ltd. till
he is recailed" and instead it contains the sentence "However, Shri Aulakh
will be working as a wholetime employee of the Punjab State Federation
H of Co-operation Sugar Mills Ltd.". In support of his aforesaid submission,
PB. SfATE CO-OP SUPPLY AND MKTG. FEDERATION LTD. v. B.S. AULAKH [S.C. AGRAWAL,J. J 753

a photostat copy of the original letter of Shri S.L. Kapur, addressed to the A
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 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 the Chairman of SUGARFED, and the ord~r of B
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
by limitation. By judgment dated February 21, 1994, the High Court
dismissed the second appeal filed by MARKFED. A review petition was c
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. D
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.
E
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,
the letter dated May 4, 1975 (Exhibit P.W. 8/14) from the Establishment
Officer, MARKFED to the Chairman, SUGARFED and the order (Ex-
F
hibit 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 G
directed the District Judge, Chandigarh to record a finding on the follow-
ing questions :

"1. Is Document No. 1 (Exhibit P.W. 8/12) a true copy of the
original letter sent or it is a fabricated copy of the original letter? H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 3 S.C.R.
11
A 2. Are the Documents Nos. 2 (Exhibit P.W. 8/14) and 3 (Exhibit
P.W. 8/29) false and fabricated documents?

3. Were both or any one of the two orders dated April 26, 1977
(Document No. 4) and April 22, 1977 (Annexure P-6 to C.W.P.
1828 of1977) passed by the Chief Minister of Punjab and, if so,
B 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 :
c (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 interpolating the words "Shri Aulakh will be an employee of Marketing
Federation but will work in Punjab Federation of Co-operative Sugar Mills
Ltd. till he is recalled" in place of the words "However, Shri Aulakh will
D be working as a wholetime employee of the 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.

E (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 by 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.
F The District Judge has observed that all the four document referred
to in the orders of this Court dated February 7, 1996 are copies which were
produced before the trial court by 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
G plaintiff had sought summons for securing the presence of Kishan Chand
as his witness but since the process serving agency was having difficulty 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
H he was told by the plaintiff that he need not. come to the Court as his name
PB. SfATE CO-OP SUPPLY AND MKl"G. FEDERATION LTD. v. B.S. AULAKH (S.C. AGRAWAL.,J.( 755

had been dropped. The District Judge was of the view that Kishan Chand A
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 B
documents (Exhibits P.W. 8/12, P.W 8/14, P.W. 8/19 and P.W. 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) as copy of the letter written by Shri S.L. Kapur, Registrar of C
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. RW. 12/1 and its original (marked D3) in support of its D
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 from 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 E
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. Shri D. Justine R.W. 9 and the Establishment Officer, Shri P.S. F
Saini, have been examined to prove that 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 G
of 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 21681 to 21685 were given to MARKFED
in place of Telephone numbers of 27366, 27234 and 27235 on April 15, 1976
and that B.S. Nayyar R.W. 6 has been examined to prove the change of H

I
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A Telex Code number from 039 to 0395 after March 7, 1980.
(1997) 3 S.C.R. •
Having regard 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
B 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 disc.Tepancies, the District Judge has come to the conclusion that the
document (Exhibit P.W. 8/14) was not prepared at the time when the same
is purported to have been done nor had it been signed by the person who
C 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
D that he had never worked as Joint Registrar (Planning) and he had not
heard any appeal filed by the plaintiff and that he has categorically stated
that the order Ex. PW 8/29 was not passed by him and it does not bear his
signatures. The service book of Shri J.N. Vashisht has also been produced
to prove that he was not posted as Joint Registrar (Planning) on the date
E 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, PunjJb and another note dated April 22, 1977 of the Chief
F 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 statement as the Court Witness, has denied his signa-
tures on the attestation and that the plaintiff has not cared to bring on
record the original of the said document and, therefore, in the absence of
G the original of the document and since the attestation is not proved it was
difficult tu record a finding in favour of the plaintiff regarding the authen-
ticity of the said document. According to the District Judge the position
was not different JS regards the note dated April 22, 1977.

A copy of the said report of the District Judge was furnished to the
H plaintiff and he has submitted his objections against the same. The plaintiff
PB. STATE CO-OP SUPPLY ANDMICTG. FEDERATION LTD.•·· B.S.AULAKH[S.CAGRAWAL..J.] 757

is represented by Shri J .D. Jain, Advocate. He has submitted an application A
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 pas~ed. 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
B
who is present in person in support of his objections on the report sub-
mitted by the District Judge.

We have carefully considered the said objections against the findings
recorded by the District Judge in the light of the evidence produced before C
him. The objections 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, there-
fore, accept the said findings.

D
As a consequence to the acceptance of the findings recorded by the
District Judge, it must be held that no order was passed by the Joint
Registrar (Planning) on the appeal of the plaintiff on September 5, 1983
and since the order (Exhibit P.W. 8/29) that was submitted by the plaintiff
and which has been relied upon by the Addi. District Judge as well as the
High Court to hold that the suit was within limitation, is a false and E
fabricated document, 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 F
that his case that after the order dated J unc 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 word "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" have been found to have been interpolated in G
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, 1975 sent by the
Establishment Officer, M.ARKFED to the Chairman, SUGARFED
wherein the plaintiff has been described as Plant Protection Officer, H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A MARKFED and it is stated that "he would continue in SUGARFED till
he is recalled" has been found to be false and fabricated. There is no reason

B
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
C note (P.W. 8/19) of the Chief Minister, Punjab dated April 26, 1977 on
which the reliance has been placed by the Addi. District Judge and the
High Court, it may be stated that three 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
D 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 a copy attested to be a true copy by Kishan Chand
E 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 Addi. District
Judge and the High Court that even after his discharge from MARKFED
F under order dated June 12, 1973 the plaintiff continued to be an 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.

G 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 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
H MARKFED. Since it has been found that the documents marked as Ex.
PB. STATECO·OP SUPPLY AND M1'."fG. FEDERATION LTD. e. B.S. AULAKH {S.C. AGRAWAL,l.J 759

P.W. 8/12, Ex. P.W. 8/14 and Ex. P.W. 8/29 that were produced by the A
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 taken the necessary steps
to fix 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 Addi. District Judge,
Chandigarh dated October 11, 1991 in C.A. No. 197 of 1990 (SS) arc 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. C
V.S.S. Appeal allowed.