A. P. Misra, J. - (1.) THE present first appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 24-7-1976 passed by the Civil Judge, Azamgarh by which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration and injunction was decreed.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration that his order of suspension dated November 16, 1968 suspending him from service as Godown Keeper in the State Bank of India, Azamgarh is illegal. He claimed the relief of an injunction directing the appellant-defendant not to interfere in his discharge of the duty as a Godown Keeper. He also claimed the relief of recovery of Rs. 36,396.16 as arrear of his salary. He also claimed his salary till he is reinstated. The brief facts of the case, as per plaintiff, are that Sri Kedar Nath Yadav, plaintiff, was appointed as a Godown Keeper on 26-12-67 and was confirmed on 27-9-68. According to him, during this period his work was entirely satisfactory to the department. But as he was implicated in an Excise Case falsely on account of enmity, he was suspended on 16-11-68. Subsequently, he was acquitted in Criminal Case under the Excise Act on 30-4-75. Thereafter, the plaintiff intimated the Bank about his acquittal and requested for his reinstatement. When the plaintiff was not reinstated then he filed the said suit. The case of the defendant-appellants was that the plaintiff was appointed temporarily for a fixed period as a Godown Keeper and his appointment as such was extended from time to time by fresh orders for a fixed period only and the last of his such appointment as temporary Godown Keeper was made on 17-9-68 for a period of two months and that period of two months came to an end on 16-11-68. Thus on that date his service automatically came to an end. The allegation of the plaintiff that he was suspended on 16-11-68 and was confirmed as Godown Keeper with effect from 27-9-68 was vehementally denied. According to defendant, neither any suspension order, nor any confirmation order was ever issued by the Bank. The case of the appellant Bank was that there was no question of paying any arrear of salary as with effect from 16-11-68 he (plaintiff) was no more in service. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to reinstatement and that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable.
(3.) THE trial court came to the conclusion that the suspension order and the confirmation order were issued by the Bank and the service of the plaintiff was never terminated and that since after his suspension on 16-11-68 no enquiry appears to have taken place the said suspension order of the plaintiff was illegal. It was held that no suspension should have been made due to false implication of the plaintiff in the criminal case under the Excise Act, which ultimately ended in favour of the plaintiff on 30-9-75. THE trial court further held that the plaintiff deserves to be reinstated with effect from the date of his suspension. A relief of declaration was also granted by the trial court that the plaintiff shall be deemed to be continuing in services. THE trial court also held the suit of the plaintiff to be maintainable. THE trial court also decreed the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 36,396.16 as arrears of his salary and also for his salary till he is reinstated. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant-appellants have preferred the present first appeal. Learned counsel for the Bank, Sri S. N. Varma challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court mainly on three grounds. Firstly, that the present dispute is an industrial dispute and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try such suit. Secondly, that the suit is barred by the Specific Relief Act and no such injunction for declaration as prayed for could be granted by the Civil Court. Finally, that the plaintiff was never appointed permanently as a Godown Keeper. His appointment remained temporary for a fixed period and it came to an end on 16-11-68. His last appointment letter dated 16-9-68 specifically mentioned that his appointment was for a period of two months only. This last appointment letter has not been disputed by the plaintiff-respondent. He urged that the only basis of the claim made by the plaintiff was two forged letters, namely the letter of suspension dated 16-11-68 and the letters of confirmation dated 27-9-68. According to him, none of these letters were proved by the plaintiff and thus the decree in favour of the plaintiff passed by the trial court is not sustainable even on facts of this case.;