BACHAWAT, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff was appointed a tracer by the Damodar Valley Corporation with effect from 17 January 1949. The letter of appointment must be read with the appointment offer dated 3 January 1949. The duration of the appointment was three years. The appointment was terminable on one month's notice on either side. The period of probation was up to 28 February 1910.
(2.) BY letter dated 27 April 1949, Mr. R.N. Lahiri, the Executive Engineer of the defendant Corporation, Panchet Hill Division, suspended the plaintiff from office work in his division from 28 April 1919 forenoon till the defendant Corporation decided finally his case. By office order dated 21 May 1949, Mr. Sohan Lal, Director of Personnel of the defendant Corporation, directed that the plaintiff be removed from Corporal ton services with effect from 28 April 1949. On receipt of this order, the plaintiff, by letter dated 8 June 1949, stated that he ha d the misfortune to be summarily dismissed from his service for no fault of his although under the terms of employment he was entitled to one month's notice, and requested reinstatement in service. The letter was addressed to the Director of of Personnel, Damodar Valley Corporation, and copies of the letter were forwarded to the Chairman and the Secretary of the Corporation. It is noticeable that in this letter the plaintiff does not complain that he had not already been dismissed from service, nor does he say that Sohan Lal had no authority to dismiss him. By letter dated 1 September 1949, addressed inter alia to the Director of Personnel and the Secretary, Damodar Valley Corporation, the plaintiff again reiterated his complaint, and stated that there was no just cause for his summary dismissal, and stated that in any event lie was entitled to at least one month's notice before his services are terminated, it, is again noticeable that the defendant does not complain that his services have not been already terminated or that Sohan Lal had no authority to dismiss him. In reply by letter dated 12 September 1949, Mr. Sohan Lal stated that the plaintiff had already been removed from the service of the Corporation with effect from 28 April 1949. By letter dated 22 October 1949, Mr. Sohan Lal again wrote to Mr. P. Roy that his services were not required by the Corporation, and consequently he had been removed from the Corporation services with effect from 28 April 1949.
(3.) IN this suit the plaintiff prays for a declaration that the order of suspension and removal is ultra vires, void, and inoperative, for a decree for setting aside the order of removal, for a decree for Rs. 838 -4 -0 on account of arrears of pay for seven months from 23 April 1949 up to 29 October 1049, and for a further decree at the rate of Rs. 117 per month up to the date of reinstatement. The plaintiff complains: (a) that at least one month's notice of termination should have been given; (b) that Mr. Sohan Lal not being an appointing authority should not remove or dismiss him from services, and, therefore his order is illegal and without jurisdiction; (c) that the plaintiff could not be legally removed from service until the charges were framed against him, and until he is allowed to defend his case as provided in the Government of India Act and Government Servants' Conduct Rules. ;