D.S. Bajpai, J. - (1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree, dated April 23, 1978 passed by Civil Judge, Sultanpur in Civil Appeal No. 391 of 1977 (T. P. Pandey v. Union of India and another) affirming the judgment and decree, dated September 10, 1977 passed by the 1st Additional Munsif, Sultanpur in Regular Suit No. 96 of 1976 (T. P. Pandey v. Union of India).
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the case are that the plaintiff appellant filed a suit for declaration that the order of suspension, dated July 29, 1975 and the order, dated September 30, 1975 withholding his next yearly increment were illegal and unenforceable. The plaintiff further sought relief for mandatory injunction to the effect that the order, dated September 30, 1975 for withholding ms next yearly increment be withdrawn and the plaintiff be given usual yearly increment including the period for which his next yearly increment has been withheld with a further direction for payment of full salary by the defendant to the plaintiff during the period of suspension. The plaintiff was R. S. A. in the Department of Post and Telegraphs Sultanpur since November 2, 1974 and was suspended on July 29, 1975 with a direction to stay at Sultanpur and with a further direction that he was not to leave Sultanpur without the permission of the S. D. 0 concerned. Thereafter the plaintiff received a letter, dated August 27, 1975 from the Office of the S. D. O. Telegraphs, Allahabad that there was a proposal to take disciplinary action against him under Rule 14 of the C. C. A. Rules for imputation of misconduct etc. The plaintiff was given ten days time to file representation against the proposal. The plaintiff's suspension order was revoked thereafter by letter, dated September 4, 1976 and the plaintiff' requested the authorities to supply him necessary documents so that he may be in a position to make representation but the defendant No. 2 failed to supply him he material demanded and as such he could not submit his representation. A communication was again received by the plaintiff from the authorities concerned chat he was given a further time of three days to file his representation failing which ex-parte decision would be taken against him. The plaintiff' admittedly did not submit any representation and that resulted in passing of the order directing stoppage of one next yearly increment on September 30, 1975 which was served on the plaintiff on October 1, 1975.
(3.) The defendants contested the case and on the pleadings of the parties the under-noted issues were framed : (1) Whether the defendants have not complied with Article 311(2) of the Indian Constitution as alleged ? (2) Whether the order, dated July 29, 1975 suspending the plaintiff' was illegal ? If so its effect. (3) Whether the order, dated September 30, 1975 for withholding the next increment of the plaintiff was illegal, so its effect ? (4) Whether the plaintiff has exhausted the departmental remedies open to him ? (5) Whether the suit is properly valued ? (6) Whether the court fees paid is insufficient ? (7) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?;