- (1.) Having been non suited by both the learned courts below recording concurrent findings of fact, whereby his suit for declaration was dismissed, plaintiff has filed the instant regular second appeal.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in para 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that the plaintiffappellant was appointed as a bus conductor by the respondent-defendant on May 15, 1969. He allegedly defrauded the government money to the tune of Rs.18/- while he was on duty on 16.5.1981, 1.6.1981 and 9.7.1981 and was found negligent and indisciplined. A charge sheet was drawn up against him. The regular enquiry was conducted in which he was held guilty. On the basis of the report of enquiry officer, General Manager, Haryana Roadways, terminated the services of the plaintiff on 25.10.1982. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed by the Transport Commissioner under his order dated 17.7.1984. The validity of the said orders was challenged on the grounds 'inter-alia':- a) that even if the misconduct and embezzlement on the part of the plaintiff was proved, the extreme penality of termination was not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. b) that there was a pre-judgment, pre-determination and pre-assessment of the guilt in the charge sheet; c) that the Transport Commissioner while deciding that appeal travelled beyond the scope of the charge-sheet and referred to the past record of the plaintiff while effecting penalty upon him whereas there was no mention in the charge sheet about his previous conduct. d) that there was no legal evidence on record to substantiate the impugned conclusion drawn up against him; e) that the enquiry findings dated 1.1.1982 submitted by the Station Supervisor Shri S. Nath were halting, ketchy and mechanical as there was no reference to or discussion of any evidence; f) that no valid and proper enquiry preceded the impugned order of termination; g) that no guidelines or judicial norms have been adhered to while deciding the appeal of the plaintiff by the Transport Commissioner; h) that the personal hearing given to the plaintiff was a farce; g) that no opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff at any stage to answer the case set up against him and the impugned orders of termination are nebulous and non speaking ones.
(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement taking up the pleas that the plaintiff was afforded every reasonable opportunity to defend himself and he could not prove himself to be innocent. The enquiry was duly and validly conducted in compliance with the relevant rules and the charges of embezzlement levelled against the plaintiff were fully proved in the enquiry. On the basis of the enquiry report the termination orders dated 25.10.1982 passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, and the appellate orders dated 17.10.1984 passed by the Transport Commissioner were legal and valid. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was heard personally before the order of termination was passed against him. The preliminary objections about the limitation, jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit as well as maintainability of the suit in the present form were also raised.;