R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE appellant -plaintiff has challenged the order dt. 15.04.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, No. 1, Ajmer whereby the leamed Judge has set -aside the judgment and decree dt. 28.05.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajmer City (East), Ajmer, and has remanded the case back to the learned trial Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on the post of Assistant Security Officer, Armed Wings of the Railways on 09.11.1963. However, vide order dt. 07.02.1996, his services were terminated. Therefore, the appellant submitted an appeal before the Deputy Chief Security Officer, Bombay challenging his termination order. Vide order dt. 10.11.1976, the appellant was reinstated in the services. Because of his reinstatement, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the Chief Security Officer and the Assistant Security Officer, respectively, started having an animosity against the appellant. In order to teach him a lesson, they served him with a charge -sheet dt. 07.04.1975. In order to protect his interest, the appellant asked for certain documents. But, the same were never given to him. He was not even provided with the copies of the said documents. According to the appellant, during the course of the departmental enquiry he was not given an opportunity of crossexamining the witnesses. He further claimed that although he had requested that Shri A.S. Srivastava should be permitted to defend him in the departmental enquiry, but the same was declined. Eventually, vide order dt. 22.12.1978, the appellant's services were terminated. Therefore, he filed a civil suit challenging the termination order. According to him, the basic principles of natural justice were violated during the departmental enquiry. Moreover, he could not be punished twice for the same act of absence from the service. For, on the one hand his salary has been deducted for the days when he was absent from the duty, yet, on the other hand, his services have been terminated on the ground that he was absent from the duty. The defendant -respondents filed their written statements and denied the averments made by the plaintiff. In order to support his case, the plaintiff examined himself as a witness and submitted twelve documents. In order to substantiate their case, the defendants examined one Narendra Kumar as a witness and submitted nine documents. After hearing both the parties and after examining the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court, vide its order dt. 28.05.1997, decreed the suit in the appellant's favour. The learned trial Court not only quashed and set -aside the charge -sheet dt. 07.04.1975, but also directed that the appellant be reinstated in the service. Since the respondents were aggrieved by the said order, they filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, No. 1, Ajmer. Vide order dt. 15.04.2002, the learned Judge has not only set -aside the judgment of the learned trial Court, but has also remanded the case back to the learned trial Court. Mr. H.K. Saini, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the powers to remand the case is well defined by Section 107 and Order 49, Rules 23 to 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code', for short). Instead of invoking the said powers, the learned Judge has needlessly remanded the case back to the learned trial Court. He has further contended that the legal journey that began in 1980 has yet to end after a voyage of twenty -seven years. For the last twenty seven years, the plaintiff is running from pillar to post hoping to be reinstated back in the service.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. S.S. Hasan, the learned Counsel for the respondents, has contended that the learned trial Court had failed to take note of Regulation 6 of the Railway Protection Force Regulation, 1966 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Regulation', for short), which clearly states that in case of an absence after the expiry of leave, a person would be liable to punishment for the absence. He has further argued that the principles of natural justice were strictly observed by the enquiry officer. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in remanding the case back to the learned trial Court.;