Decided on December 19,1983

SHAM LAL Appellant
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



N.N.Goswamy,J. - (1.)This second appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4-1-1971 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Delhi with enhanced appellate powers whereby his first appeal against the dismissal of his suit, was also dismissed.
(2.)The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order of dismissal passed against the plaintiff and communicated to him by memo dated 31-1-1966, was illegal, biased, ultra vires, caprecious, wanton, without jurisdiction, mala fide, incompetent and against the principles of plural justice, It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was promoted as permanent Supervisor in the year 1958 in the Department of Military Farms, Ministry of Defence, Government of India and was working as such in the Military Dairy Farm, Devlali when he was given charge-sheet on 18-4-1964 and was dismissed from service vide order referred to above. The challenge was on the basis that the inquiry was not conducted by the competent authority and also by the person who could not be considered impartial. The Enquiry Officer is far below to the rank of important prosecution witness namely Major S. S. Passi who was a raiding officer who wanted -to see the success his raid. It is further alleged that the venue of enquiry was the hospital where Major Passi was being treated for illness and this was not warranted and had been done under the pressure of Major Passi. It is further alleged that the enquiry suffered from the violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the plaintiff was not allowed to .produce Shri S. N. Joshi as a witness and the plaintiff was also not allowed to argue his case at the initial: stage as also in the appeal. It was further alleged that the charge-sheet suffered from misjoinder of charges which has been resulted in the miscarriage of justice. It is also alleged that the show cause notice issued to the plaintiff was incompetent, vague and indefinite and it had been issued by an authority which had no jurisdiction. The grievance has also been made to the orders being cryptic in nature.
(3.)The suit was contested by the respondents. It was pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff was properly dismissed from service after a proper enquiry which was held in accordance with rules applicable. It was further pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the suit against defendants 2 and 3 was not maintainable.

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