- (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that his removal from service was invalid and that he continued to be still in service.
(2.) THE plaintiff was employed as an A grade fireman on the East Indian Railway and was last posted at Kanpur. The salary that he drew at the lime of his removal was Rs. 60 per mensem besides allowances. On 25 May 1947 he was served with a chargesheet asking him to show cause as to why he was not found when called to work at 17-40 on 5 March 1947 and as to why he wan absent from 5 March 1947-to 20 May 1947. In the same chargesheet he was called upon to show cause why ho should not be punished. The nature of the punishment intended was not communicated in the notice. An explanation appears to have been submitted on the same clay. The next day, that is, on 22 May 1947, the plaintiff was removed from service. The suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted on 1 April 1949 and. in defence it was pleaded that the plaintiff's removal was valid and that the provisions of Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, not having been complied with, the suit was defective and not maintainable. The trial court; found that the plaintiffs removal from service was right and that the provisions of Section 80, Civil procedure Code, hail not been complied with. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. This decision was affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contends that the notice under Section 80 of the Code of civil Procedure was addressed to the Secretary of Central Government for Railway instead of being sent to the General Manager of the East Indian Railway as required by law. This notice, however, which was sent to the Secretary was sent by the Assistant Director, Railway Board, to the General Manager, East Indian Railway, and a letter was addressed by the Assistant Director to the plaintiff saying that the notice had been forwarded to the General Manager and further correspondence should be made with that office. It appears that no further correspondence was entered into, but from the reply received by the plaintiff from the Railway "board it is evident that the notice was forwarded to the General Manager of the East Indian Railway and it must be taken to have reached him in the ordinary course of official business. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not addressed any argument in reply to those submissions and in the circumstances of this case the suit cannot be said to be defective for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code, of Civil Procedure.;