- (1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff's purported removal from service is illegal, null and void, that the plaintiff continues to be in service of defendant No. 1, namely, the Union of India as an Inspector in the Central Excise Department. The plaintiff also prayed for recovery of Rs. 4519/28 with pendente lite and future salary with increments and allowances admissible to him.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the determination of the points urged before me are these. The plaintiff was employed in the Central Excise Department as an Inspector on 1-3-1945 and was confirmed on 1-10-1951. In 1957, he was posted as an Inspector incharge of Saraswa range, district Saharanpur, where Sri Kishan Singh, Deputy Superintendent was his immediate superior. The relations between these two persons became strained for some reason. It is alleged that the said Sri Kishan Singh made some inquiries against the plaintiff on the basis of which the plaintiff was suspended by the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad by an order dated 23-1-1958. Simultaneously, a charge-sheet was issued by the Collector to the plaintiff on 21-3-1958. An inquiry is alleged to have been held pursuant to the charge-sheet by the Assistant Collector (Vigilance) New Delhi, to whom the Collector is said to have delegated the task of the inquiry. On 27-6-1959, the plaintiff was removed from service.
(3.) The plaintiff appealed to the Central Board of Revenue, but it was rejected. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed a writ petition in this Court which was allowed on 18-4-1962 and the order dated 27-6-1959 was quashed on the ground that the plaintiff had not been given reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges. The plaintiff was thereupon reinstated on 2-5- 1926. The reinstatement was immediately followed by an order dated 3-5-1962 passed by the Assistant Collector (Headquarters) Central Excise, Allahabad. By this order, the Assistant Collector (Headquarters) directed suspension of the plaintiff with immediate effect purporting to exercise powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 14-5-1962 was issued by the same officer, namely, the Assistant Collector (Headquarters). It was stated in the above charge-sheet signed by the Assistant Collector (Headquarters) that it was proposed to hold an inquiry against the plaintiff under Rule 15 of the aforesaid Rules. The charge-sheet contained three charges. The charge-sheet was served on the plaintiff on 23-5-62. Along with the charge-sheet, a statement of allegations on which the charges framed against the plaintiff were said to be based was also served on the plaintiff.;