- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This is a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18-5-1982 passed by Shri U. S. Tripathi, Vllth Additional District Judge, Allahabad by virtue of which the trial court judgment and decree was set aside and the suit of the appellant for declaration that the order removing him from service is illegal, inoperative and without jurisdiction and it was further ordered that appellant con tinues in service with all benefits accruing from the past was decreed with costs.
(2.) THE appellant filed suit for declara tion in the lower court that he was ap pointed as a Rakshak, Railway Protection Force on 14-1-1967. He was served charge sheet for unauthorised absence from 6-2- 1974 to 27-8-1974. He was served charge-sheet by registered letter under Rule 44 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 ( here in after referred to as Rules of 1959 ). He was at relevant time was serving at Chunar, District Mirzapur. It may be men tioned that he was ill on 3-2-1974 and remained under treatment up to 5-2-1974 and there after discharged on 6-2-1979. This period relates before the absence period. Show-cause notice was given to him. It ap pears that he did not participate in the en quiry to answer the serious misconduct of remaining absent. THE grievance of the plaintiff- respondent is that he was not given list of documents, list of witness and as a result of which he has been prejudiced in his defence. Show cause notice of proposed punishment was issued on 3-8-1976 and which was received by the plaintiff-respon dent on 25-8-1976 and the reply was to be given with in fourteen days of the receipt of the notice. Fourteen days expired on 8-9-1979 and order of removal is dated 26-8-1976 w. e. f. 1-9-1976. The order for termination was signed on 30-8-1976 before the expiry of period of fourteen days. The case of the defendant-appellant in the lower court was that full opportunity was given to defend the case. It is also al leged by the defendant that the plaintiff has exhausted the remedy of appeal and revision before the competent authority and, as such, this Court has hardly any scope to interfere.
(3.) SHRI Lalji Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellate court has committed a grave error in hold ing that no reasonable opportunity was given to the plaintiff- respondent by way of supply of documents and also regarding the notice of punishment. He further submits that respondent did not participate in the enquiry and as such it does not deserve any relief. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the finding of the lower court is based on false and incorrect facts.;