POONAM SRIVASTAV, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri K. C. Sinha, learned counsel for the defendant -appellant, Union of India and Sri A. K. Sachan advocate for the plaintiff -respondent.
(2.) THE suit was instituted claiming relief of declaration to the effect that the order of removal of the plaintiff from services w.e.f. 29.11.1971, passed by the disciplinary authority is null and void. The ground of challenge as detailed in the plaint was that the show cause notice issued to the plaintiff did not disclose the charges, without any application of mind and analysis of the enquiry report. The order of removal is also illegal, excessive and non -consideration of the plaintiffs representation in reply to the show cause notice, also proposed punishment is not commensurate to the act of delinquency. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondent was appointed as Tailor 'C' in the Clothing Factory, Kanpur, a unit of Ordinance Parachute Factory, Kanpur on 22.7.1963. A general notice was issued inviting options to join at the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur. The plaintiff applied for the same and was posted as Machinist 'C' in the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur w.e.f. 26.12.1966. The plaint allegation is that some times in the last week of April, 1970, while posted as Machinist 'C' in M.A.J. Section of the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur the plaintiff learnt through reliable source that a gang of undesirable and unsocial men were operating in the precincts of the factory and were involved in pilferage of Government property such as copper, brass and other costly items like silver etc. An automatic carbine gun manufactured in the factory was also stealthily removed from the factory premises with the connivance of the gate staff and other factory staff. The plaintiff informed the S.A.F. Authority only with a view to safeguard the national interest. A report was also given by the plaintiff to the L.I.U. Office, Macrobertganj, Kanpur. The plaintiff was asked to give further information with a clear assurance by Sub -Inspector of Police (D.I.S.) in the L.I.U. Office, Kanpur that no harm will be caused. He gave a detailed information to the Superintendent of Police, L.I.U. Office. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had absolutely no personal interest. The plaintiff submits that he was completely disillusioned and all his efforts resulted in his victimization. However, the carbine gun stolen from the factory was recovered from the possession of the gang of thieves and dacoits and certain employees of the factory were also arrested. The plaintiff was issued a commendatory certificate on 4.9.1970 for his aforesaid deeds but certain other employees of the Parachute Factory, who had an axe to grind, with the help of the superior authorities, got him transferred. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff was suspended as he was taken into custody by the police but subsequently the suspension was revoked w.e.f. 30.11.1970. Simultaneously a transfer order was also passed transferring him to Ammunition Factory, Kirkee in public interest and he was directed to join his duty on or before 11.12.1970. However, before he could join services, earlier order was revoked. Another order was passed on 30.11.1970 by the General Manager entitling the plaintiff to get complete salary and allowances during the period of suspension from 4.5.1970 to 29.11.1970 and that the plaintiff will be treated on duty for all purposes. The order also stated that having been permanently transferred to Ammunition Factory, Kirkee, his name would be struck off from the roll of the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur w.e.f. 30.11.1970 forenoon. The plaintiff was surprised by transfer order to a distant place in the State of Maharashtra. A telegram was sent to the "Munitions Calcutta" and copies to the General Manager S.A.F., Kanpur and Ammunition Factory, Kirkee. A representation was also submitted on 13.12.1970 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Operation Area), Agra Range, Agra. The plaintiff was served with a copy of the factory order No. 1088 dated 28.8.1971 issued under the authority of order dated 24.11.1970, passed by the General Manager, S.A.F., Kanpur transferring him to Ordinance Parachute Factory, Kanpur and directing him to report on 30.8.1971 forenoon and also granting him extraordinary leave without pay from 30.11.1970 to 28.8.1971. The plaintiff reported on the said date but the work which was given to him was of making kaj button which was not the work of Machinist 'C', as it related to the engineering department where he was previously posted. This was objected by the plaintiff and he met the General Manager personally to handover a letter of request dated 30.8.1971 to provide him work relating to the engineering department or else may be transferred to any other establishment at Kanpur. All the effort was rendered futile and finally the plaintiff served a legal notice under Section 80, C.P.C. on the defendant stating his grievances. Thereafter the plaintiff was served with a charge -sheet on 19.2.1972 and an inquiry was instituted against him under Rule 14 of the C.C.S. (C.C. and A.) Rules, 1965 for alleged wilful unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 30.8.1971 without any limitation. The plaintiff was finally removed from services by the disciplinary authority by means of an order dated 21.11.1972 on the basis of inquiry report and the show cause notice dated 3.10.1972 stating therein that the General Manager agreed with the inquiry report and proposes the punishment of removal from service w.e.f. 29.11.1971 forenoon on the ground of his unauthorized absence. A reply was submitted by the plaintiff. The objection on behalf of the plaintiff -respondent was that he was not given the show cause notice mentioning any specific charges and reasons for arriving at a conclusion and awarding extreme punishment of removal from service retrospectively. On receipt of the representation a short and cryptic order of removal was passed removing him w.e.f. 29.11.1971. The instant suit was instituted on a number of grounds as mentioned in the plaint.
(3.) THE suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.1974 by IIIrd Additional Munsif, Kanpur. A declaration was made that the removal order No. C.F. -1591/Con/1 dated 21.11.1972, passed by the General Manager, Parachute Factory, Kanpur imposing penalty of removal from service of the plaintiff w.e.f. 29.11.1971 is illegal and without any valid ground and the plaintiff be treated in continuous service with full benefits accruing to his post. This judgment was challenged in Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1975, Union of India v. Adbul Qayum. The appeal was remanded to the lower court for recording definite finding as to which rules have been violated in the inquiry and the order under challenge passed by the defendant is in contravention of what specific Rules. After the remand, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.5.1980. A Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1981 was instituted by the plaintiff which was allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and a declaration was made that the order dated 21.11.1972 passed by the defendant -appellant is void and the plaintiff should be considered as continuing in service. The suit was decreed by the lower appellate court on 30.4.1982.;