9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of removal from service dated 16-3-1949. 2. Compliance with Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. 3. Validity of the notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the order of removal from service dated 16-3-1949: The respondent was appointed as an assistant booking clerk on 15-7-1947 and made permanent on 26-5-1948. He was suspended on 7-2-1949 due to allegations of refusing to issue third-class tickets at the correct fare. A charge sheet was issued on 21-2-1949, and the respondent denied the allegations. On 16-3-1949, an order was passed stating that the respondent would be given one month's pay in lieu of notice of removal from service with effect from 18-3-1949. The respondent's appeal against this order was dismissed, leading him to file a suit claiming the discharge was illegal and arbitrary. The Additional Subordinate Judge and the District Judge dismissed the suit, but the Judicial Commissioner reversed their decisions, declaring the removal order illegal and ineffective. 2. Compliance with Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935: The appellant argued that the removal was in accordance with the terms of the respondent's contract of service, thus Section 240(3) did not apply. However, the court emphasized that the order was penal in nature, as it deprived the respondent of half his pay during suspension and provided a right of appeal under Rule 1717, indicating it was a punishment. The court referenced the principles laid down in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India and Khem Chand v. Union of India, which clarified that if termination is by way of punishment, the government servant must be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause. Since the respondent was not given this opportunity, the order violated Section 240(3) and was thus illegal and ineffective. 3. Validity of the notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code: The appellant contended that the notice under Section 80 was not in accordance with law because the relief mentioned in the notice did not correspond with the relief claimed in the plaint. The Judicial Commissioner found no substantial difference between the reliefs claimed in the notice and the plaint. The notice sought reinstatement and payment due from the date of discharge to reinstatement, while the plaint sought a declaration that the discharge was illegal. The court held that the notice was valid as there was no substantial difference in the reliefs. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the Judicial Commissioner's decision that the removal order was illegal and ineffective due to non-compliance with Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and that the notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, was valid.
|
