D.P.Uniyal, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the Civil Judge reversing the decree of the Munsif and dismissing the suit.
(2.) The facts of the case were shortly these. The plaintiff Pushkar Dutta was employed as a fitter in the office of the Divisional Superintendent, East Indian Railway, Allahabad, since 7-5-40. He absented himself from duty without leave from 14-10-47 to 3-11-47. When he returned to work on 4-11-47 he was served with a charge-sheet (Ex. B) and was called upon to show cause why he should not be punished with the penalty specified in Item 6 of the List for unauthorised absence from duty from 14-10-47 to 3-11-47. The penalty specified in Item 6 of the List was removal from service. The plaintiff wrote out his explanation on the charge-sheet itself the same day saying that his brother was seriously ill and hence he was unable to attend his duty. No fresh notice, or opportunity was given to the plaintiff in regard to the action proposed to be taken against him by the defendant. He was instead served with an order (Ex. D) dated 19/23-12-47 which is in a printed form and is headed 'Removal Notice'. The notice (Ex. D) served on the plaintiff reads as follows: "As your services are no longer required by the Administration you are hereby removed from service by my order ..... and you are hereby given ... one month's pay in lieu of notice ..... your services will accordingly terminate on the forenoon/afternoon of 21-12-47. (sd) Superintendent Power"
(3.) The words 'in terms of your agreement and conditions of service' were scored out from the removal notice Ex. D served on the plaintiff, which clearly indicated that the termination of the plaintiff's service was not on the basis of the agreement or conditions and terms of his service.;