R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) STATE of Haryana, defendant in the trial Court, has filed the present Regular Second Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.5.1999, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Sirsa, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.7.1997, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, who decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration as prayed for.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Bikar Singh plaintiff was posted as Conductor No. 331 in Haryana Roadways, Sirsa Depot. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 25.8.1994 passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sirsa Depot. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the order of dismissal was also dismissed by Additional Transport Commissioner vide order dated 28.6.1995. The plaintiff through this suit has challenged both the orders on the ground that the same are illegal, null, void and without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside. The plaintiff also alleged that the order of dismissal is without jurisdiction and authority because as per the executive instructions of the Government dated 4.6.1993, a Conductor involved in a case of embezzlement/fraud can only be dismissed from service by the Transport Commissioner and not by the General Manager concerned. The plaintiff also alleged that the order of dismissal is punitive in nature and is violative of Article 311 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. On these averments the plaintiff sought the relief of declaration and for mandatory injunction praying that be taken into service and he may also be given all the benefits of service including the arrears etc. The suit was contested by the defendants. According to the defendants, the services of the plaintiff were terminated on 25.8.1994. It was pleaded that there was no necessity to record the statements of the passengers who were found travelling without tickets. The plaintiff was given full opportunity to defend himself. He was allowed to cross -examine the prosecution witnesses. The inquiry was conducted in a legal and proper manner, A proper charge -sheet was served upon the plaintiff with list of witnesses and allegations. The services of the plaintiff have been terminated on account of the fact that he embezzled a sum of Rs. 200/ -. No previous record of the plaintiff was taken into consideration at the time of the passing of the termination order dated 25.8.1994. With this defence, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
(3.) PLAINTIFF filed replication to the written statement in which he reiterated the allegations made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement.;