AGARWALA, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff's removal from service was unjustified, illegal and wrongful and that he should be deemed to be continuing in service and further that a decree for Rs. 4,725/ -as compensation for the period the plaintiff was illegally deprived to serve the Government be passed in favour of the plaintiff -appellant. The facts giving rise to the suit are as follows:
(2.) THE appellant Dr. Ishwar Narain Sinha was appointed as a temporary Assistant Medical officer of what was formerly known as O. T. Railway in the year 1945. He was admittedly appointed by the Principal Medical Officer of that Railway and was at first posted to Gorakhpur and then transferred to Samastipur Railway Hospital. He was confirmed on the 21st February 1946. The letter of confirmation addressed to him. was on behalf of the Chief Medical Officer. There is a little dispute as to who in law would be deemed to have confirmed the appellant as the direction to the Chief Medical Officer to issue the letter of confirmation was given by the General Manager and it is the appellant's case that he should be deemed to have been in fact confirmed by the General Manager and therefore appointed by the General Manager and not by the Chief Medical Officer. On the 9th August, 1949, Dr. Sinha examined the eye sight of one Ram Lakhan. He found him fit for Class A -1 service. This Ram Lakhan was a driver and on the appellant's aforesaid report he was allowed to continue in service as a driver.
(3.) ABOUT a year later the Chief Medical Officer happened to examine Ram Lakhan and he found that he had no vision in the left eye and even in the right eye his vision was so defective that he could not have been found fit for A -1 service. Thereupon under orders of the Chief Medical Officer the appellant was asked to explain the discrepancy between the findings of the appellant and the findings of the Chief Medical Officer. It was added that the cause of Bam Lakhan's visual defect was not likely to have developed since his examination by the appellant.;