S.K.Phaujdar, J. - (1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree darted 9-9-1992 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Ghazipur in Civil Appeal No. 83 of 1991. This Civil Appeal was filed by the present respondents Sri Ram Sahan Rai against the judgment and decree dated 15.3.1991 passed by the 6th Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ghazipur in suit No. 580 of 1987.
(2.) The suit was filed by Ram Sahan Rai for a declaration that the order of his removal from service dated 15-4-1987, which was served on him on 16-4-1987, was illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. He had prayed for a declaration that he was continuing in service and for a direction that the defendant or his agent or servant may recognise the plaintiffs status and as such afford him the consequential benefits,
(3.) In terms of the plaint, defendant No- 2 was the District Co-operative Bank represented by the Sachiv Samanya Prabandhak (Secretary / General Manager). The Plaintiff was initially appoimed as a clerk under defendant No. 2 and was posted on 11.5.1972 in the Accounts Section of the Bank. The plaint indicates that he worked as clerk in the Bank and had been on leave on medical grounds on different dates and had made over charge to one Virendra Nath under the direction of the Secretary of the Bank. It was stated that one Shri N.P. Pandey was the acting Secretary in the absence of the regular secretary and although Sri Pandey was not competent to record an order, he issued latter No. 1525/5 Anu-March 86-87 dated 15-4-1987 designating the plaintiff as a Clerk/Cashier and accused him of absence from 11-10-1985. The notice charged him of misconduct of serious nature for illegally absconding from duties. This order was stated to have been passed without jurisdiction beyond Rules 62-66(3) (Kha) and 85(2) (kha). The notice indicates that he was found guilty of breach of Rule 84 (6) and he was removed from service which was a major penalty. The plaintiff was not paid his salary from 21-7-1985 to the date of alleged order of removal at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month. The plaintiff, due to paucity of fund, reserved his right to suo for the arrears of pay and only sued for a declaration that the removal order was illegal. For the purposes of Court fee the valuation of the suit was estimated at Rs. 300/- only.;