A.N. Dikshita, J. - (1.) Union of India, appellant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8-5-1975 passed by Sri Naseemuddin, IV Addl. Civil Judge, Varanasi in Civil Appeal No. 328 of 1974, arising out of Original Suit No. 352 of 1972.
(2.) The respondent was employed as Rakshak in the R. P. F. at Mughalsarai, U. P. a post under the Asstt. Security Officer, Danapur on 28-2-1971. When he was placed under suspension without any justification, as alleged, by the Security Officer, R. P. F., Mughalsarai. It was alleged by the respondent that the charge-sheet No. 101/71 dated 25-4-1971 issued by the Asstt. Security Officer, R. P. F., Danapur was based on wrong facts and was illegal. The respondent was later on removed from service by Order dated 30. 3. 72/3-4-1972. The respondent preferred an appeal against the above order of removal but was rejected by the Security Officer, R. P. F. Mughalsarai, by order dated 18-5-1972. The respondent served with a notice under Section 80, C. P. C. and then filed a Suit No. 352 of 1972 (Kamal Das v. Union of India and another) for a declaration that the order dated 30-3-1972/3-4-1972 passed by the Asstt. Security Officer, R. P. F., Danapur is illegal, invalid, unconstitutional and that the respondent continuous in service as a Rakshak in R. P. F. The appellant contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations. It was contended by the appellant that the respondent was suspended on 28-2-1971 for failing to prevent theft of one that C. P. Goods from wagon No. N. R. 6318 while on duty at Mughalsarai which resulted in the issue of a charge-sheet. A proper enquiry was held and full opportunity was given to the plaintiff. However, on the receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer, respondent was found guilty and, consequently, removed from service by the impugned order. The appeal preferred by the respondent to the authorities was dismissed by the Competent Authority and there is no breach of R. P. F. Act or Constitution of India.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issued; 1. Whether the suit is undervalued and the court-fee paid is insufficient?. 2. Is the suit bad for mis-joinder of defendant No. 2? 3. It the notice under Section 80, C. P. C. illegal?. 4. Is the plaintiffs suit barred by Sections 34 and 42 of Specific Relief Act?. 5. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action to maintain the suit ?. 6. Whether the order No. 605/720, dated 30-3-72/3-4-1972 passed by A. C., Danapur is illegal, void and in-operative?. 7. Whether the Departmental enquiry and its findings were bad in law?. If so it's effect?.;