- (1.) THIS is a civil regular second appeal by the plaintiff Ramlal in a suit for declaration which has been dismissed by both courts below.
(2.) THE material facts leading up to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. The plaintiff was admittedly a Watchman in the service of the Western Railway at the time with which we are concerned, that is, on the 24th February, 1953. He was posted at the Gangapur Railway Station of the said Railway. In the course of his duties on the 24th February, 1953, he acted as an escort (from the eastern side) to the 848 Up Goods Train leaving Agra East Bank for the Bayana Railway Station. This train left Idgah at 9. 25 p. m. on that night, and wagon No. 18714 on this train was checked and found in order at the time of the departure of the train from Idgah Station. After the train had reached the Fatehpur Sikri Railway Station, which was the next stoppage for this train, it was found that the doors of the aforesaid wagon had been opened on the eastern side and there was a shortage of four packages, two of soap, one of Haldi and the fourth one of Gulal. The plaintiff was suspected of having been negligent in the discharge of his duties as Watchman, and consequently he was served with a charge-sheet Ex. 6 on the I cth May, 1953. The plaintiff submitted his explanation Ex. A6 to this charge-sheet on the 4th May 1953 in which he mentioned a number of reasons why it was not possible for him to have detected the incident in question, and he maintained that he had been fully alert to his duties, and that the truth of his submission be verified, if necessary, from the Guard of the said train. It is remarkable that on the 26th May, 1953, the plaintiff submitted an application to the Watch and Ward superintendent in which he tried to explain at length how the theft might have occurred and how he was not able to detect the same at the proper time and eventually concluded his application in the following manner: "i have rendered my duty of an escort watchman in the best possible manner for which guard of the train and the Almighty God are the only witnesses. Hope your honour would deal my case sympathetically due to aforesaid reasons and would award justice after making personal enquiries in my presence because charges levied are most serious and punishment proposed is a life and death question. " Curiously enough, no departmental inquiry seems to have been ordered or made, and on the 17th June, 1953, the plaintiff was given a second notice Ex. A-7 to the 'effect that his explanation had been considered and that he was found guilty of neglect of duty resulting in loss to the Railway administration, and, therefore, a provisional decision had been come to that he should be removed from service and therefore he should show cause why the proposed penalty be not imposed on him. The plaintiff did not submit any reply to this, and eventually he was removed from service by the order of the Watch and Ward Superintendent. dated the 23rd July, 1953. The plaintiff then went up in appeal to the Chief Commercial Superintendent of the western Railway which was dismissed by him, and the intimation of this dismissal was communicated to the plaintiff under a letter of the Watch and Ward superintendent dated the T6th December, 1953. Thereafter the plaintiff having given the necessary statutory notices under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, against the Union of India and the Watch and Ward Superintendent of the Western Railway in the court of the munsiff Gangapur, on the 3rd September, 1954, in which he prayed for a declaration that the order of his dismissal passed by the Watch and Ward Superintendent on the 23rd July, 1953, was void and of no effect in law and for a further declaration that he still continued in the service of the said Railway. It may be pointed out at this place that the plaintiff need not. have impleaded the Watch and Ward Superintendent as a defendant in the suit.
(3.) THE main grounds on which the plaintiff attacked the order of his removal and which are relevant for the purposes of the present appeal are (1) that the charge-sheet was vague and not specific, and that he being an illiterate person, it was not explained to him; and (2) that no inquiry into the allegations made against him had at all been made by the department and yet a second show cause notice had been given to him and he was eventually removed from service and thus no reasonable opportunity had been afforded to him for his defence.;