SITA RAM KALA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI NEW DELHI
LAWS(P&H)-1954-9-9
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on September 09,1954

SITA RAM KALA RAM Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kapur, J. - (1.) This is an appeal brought by the plaintiff against a judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Amritsar, dated 28-1-1952 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration with costs.
(2.) The plaintiff was recruited as a clerk in 19(sic) by the old North-Western Railway. On 29-1-19(sic) he was a Booking Clerk at Amritsar Railway Station. On that day one Ved Prakash made a complaint to the Chief Booking Clerk in regard to an excess payment of Rs. 100/- in the following circumstances. He purchased 5 1/2 inter class tickets to Kanpur and in payment of that he had handed over a hundred-rupee currency note to the Booking Clerk and the latter demanded another Rs. 147-6-0 from him against which the complainant protested, but (sic) the Booking Clerk denied that he had received Rs. 100/- he paid another Rs. 150/. Later on the plaintiff's cash was checked and an excess of Rs. 100 was found which was returned to the complainant and (sic) acknowledgment received on the back of the complaint. On 29-1-1948 Assistant Transportation Officer S.R. Paul D. W. 1 sent communication Ex. D-1 to the Divisional Commercial Officer, Ferozepore, mentioning the facts contained in the complaint of Ved Prakash. As from 6-2-1948 the plaintiff was put under suspension and Ex. D-2 at page 38 of the paper book shows that Sita Ram plaintiff was charge sheeted and he was asked to put in his defence within seven days under the Rules of the Railway Rules. He was also informed that if he wanted to be heard in person, he could apply for it, by the granting of the request was entirely within the discretion of the officer empowered to punish him. His defence is at page 39 and is dated 24-21948 He practically admitted the facts but stated that (sic) was a mistake and there was no dishonesty. On 28-2-1948 the Divisional Commercial Officer said that he was not prepared to accept the explanation of the plaintiff and he (plaintiff) was removed from service, and the final order of removal was made on 15-3-1948 in which it is stated- "You are hereby informed that in accordance with the orders passed by Divisional Commercial Officer, Ferozepore, you are removed from ser- vice. Pay in lieu of notice of discharge from service with effect from 153- 1948." Exhibit D-8 is a letter of the Station Master, Amritsar, showing that the notice of discharge was delivered to the plaintiff and his acknowledgment was sent to the Divisional Superintendent.
(3.) The plaintiff then took an appeal to the Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Punjab Railway, but that gentleman dismissed his appeal on 16-4-1948 and this order was conveyed on 19-5-1948 to the plaintiff.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.