JIA LAL KILAM J. - (1.)THIS is a civil second appeal and is directed against an order of the learned Addl. District Judge Jammu dated 10 -1 -1955. The following facts have given rise to this litigation:
(2.)THE plaintiff appellant was an employee of the Dhamarth Department, and at the time o! his retirement he was holding the post of Mohatamini Dharmarth. His retirement fell due on 23rd Katik 2005, but actually he was relieved on 24th Katik, 2005, and permission was accorded to him to avail himself of four months privilege leave to take effect from 25th Katik 2005. The plaintiff was yet enjoying his privilege leave, when in the meantime a pamphlet named as "Rape of Dharmarth" was published. This pamphlet contains a severe attack on the functioning of the Dharmarth Department. The Dharmarth Department had a suspicion that th" plaintiff was the author or at anv rate the instigator of. this pamplet, and on the 4th March, 1949 21st Phagan 2005 he was put under suspension. The plaintiff was subsequently dismissed from service.
(3.)THE plaintiff having been put under suspension brought the present suit on 9th Bhadoon 2006 for recovery of the arrears of his pay which according to him amounted to Rs.1447 - and also sought a declaration that the order of his suspension dated 4th March 1949 21st Phagon 2005 was ineffective as being illegal, mala fide and ultra vires. The order of dismissal was passed by his Highness the Maharaja Bahadur dated 7th September 1949 on a recommendation by the Dharmarth Council.
The defendant, Dharmarth Council, resisted the suit on a number of grounds. It was pleaded that the inquiry was conducted in the presence of the plaintiff and it was found that the plaintiff was the author of the pamphlet known as the "Rape of Dharmarth" and that ultimately his dismissal from service was ordered by His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur. It was further contended that an order passed by His Highness could not be challenged in a court of law and as such the plaintiffs suit merited dismissal. It was also submitted in the written statement that the plaintiff having been found guilty of gross misconduct was liable to forfeit his pension and any other amenities to which he may have been entitled for his past services. A further contention advanced by the defendant was that the plaintiff was motivated in writing the scurrilous pamphlet under discussion, by non -acceptance of his request for a further extension of his service by a year.