A. N. Dikshita, J. - (1.) This second appeal arises against the judgment and decree, dated 18-8-1979 passed by Sri I. P. Mittal, District Judge Pauri Garhwal in Civil Appeal No 12 of 1979 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 19 - M979 passed by Sri Birendra Singh, Munsif, Pauri decreeing the suit No. 24 of 1978 of the plaintiff-appellant and declaring that the order, dated 15-12-1975 passed by defendant-respondent No. 2 is invalid and ineffective and also that the plaintiff-appellant was still in service of the defendants.
(2.) Facts in brief are that the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was appointed by the Divisional Organiser, Ranikhet respondent No. 2 as a washerman in Women Advance Training School, Pauri w.e.f. 17-3-1969. The appellant performed his duties satisfactorily for 7 years. However time and again respondent No. 3 used to take the work of a coolie from the appellant and on protest earned the displeasure of the respondent No. 3 so much so that the respondent No. 3 was on the look out for an opportunity to dispense with the services of the appellant. At the instance and instigation of respondent No. 3, respondent No. 2 initially sent a notice, dated 15-12-1975 and later on without assigning any reason and contrary to the requirement of law dispensed with the services of the appellant w.e.f., 14-1-1976. The appellant contended that his services have been illegally terminated without assigning any reason and in violation of the principles of natural justice. In fact he had become permanent in view of his continuous services for 7 years but still his services have been terminated with mala fide intentions and such order of termination of service would be deemed to be nonest. Even a representation to the Director General S. S. B., against the termination of his services was rejected. Another representation to the Cabinet Secretary met the similar fate and the appellant thereafter sent a notice, dated 26-6-1976 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) but that remained un-replied.
(3.) Ultimately the suit was filed by the appellant claiming a declaration that the notice, dated 12-12-1975 as well as the order, dated 14-1-1976 be declared illegal, void and inoperative and also that the appellant continues in service on the post of washerman.;