GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a Civil First Appeal under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 8. 12. 1977 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Jaipur City.
(2.) THE plaintiff appellant filed a suit for declaration and recovery of arrears amounting to Rs. 12, 474. 99p. against the defendant-respondents dated 31. 10 1972 in the Court of District Judge, Jaipur City. THE declaration sought by the appellant was that the defendant's order dated 5. 5. 71, whereby the two grade increments of the plaintiff have been withheld, with cumulative effect, and the order dated 22. 12. 1971, whereby his departmental appeal against the order dated 5. 5. 1971 was rejected, and further the payment has also been disallowed to him, be declared null, void, ineffective, illegal and inoperative in law. A sum of Rs. 12,474. 99p. was also claimed by him for the arrears of his salary and the amount of grade increments not allowed to him. Since the plaintiff was not in a position to pay the required court fee, he filed the plaint in the 'forma-pauperis'. THE suit was later on transferred to the court of Additional District Judge No. 1 Jaipur City, Jaipur. The plaintiff is a civil servant. He filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 12,474. 99p. On 31st October, 1972 in the court of Addl. District Judge Jaipur. There were a series of enquiries commenced and dropped, re-commenced and order of dismissal passed and quashed against Gulab Singh who did not attend his office after transfer. Ultimately by order dated 5. 5. 1971 two grade increments of the plaintiff appellant have been withhled with cumulative effect. The impugned order is dated 22. 12. 1971. The plaintiff wants that this order dated 22. 12. 1971 should be declared null and void and a sum of Rs. 12,474. 99p. be allowed to him as arrears of salary and pay etc. The defendant's main contention is that for the aforesaid period the plaintiff remained absent from duty, he cannot get the salary etc. After framing all the issues evidence was recorded and the suit has been dismissed. The only question argued by Mr. Bandhu, learned counsel for the plaintiff, is that once apology was accepted by the defendants then there could not have been further enquiry again. He relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court, Shiv Singh v. Marathawade University Aurangabad (1 ). It would be necessary to trace-out the history of the involved enquiries and orders. The plaintiff was a black smith in Government Press, Jaipur. Due to this situation he was transferred to Jodhpur. Shri Mathura Dass was the Minister concerned at that time, stayed the order of transfer up to 15th of February, 1966. But later on no order was passed. The plaintiff applied for leave for two months and he was not aware of what orders were passed on it. A charge sheet was given for remaining absent and not joining at Jodhpur and an order for removal was passed. The order for transfer was latter on cancelled and he continued in the Govt. Press, Jaipur up to July, 26,1977. Against the order of dismissal an appeal was filed and it succeeded. It must be according to law. The plaintiff was reinstated but again notice was given to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. Then he was removed from service. Again an appeal was filed due to which two years grade - increment was stopped with cumulative effect. On 22nd January, 1971 the plaintiff was denied salary for this period and therefore, he filed a suit. A written statement has been filed and it has been pointed out that from 1. 2. 1966 to 11. 1. 1967 ag;in from 22nd July, 1967 to 13th March 1969 and 18th April, 1969 to 5. 1. 1971 the salary of the plaintiff has been with held on the ground of his absence. Now before this Court, Mr. Purohit appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that so far as the period between 22. 7. 1967 and 12th March, 1969 is concerned, since the plaintiff remained out of employment on account of dismissal order though which was latter on quashed he is not entitled to salary. I have carefully examined the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of both courts below as well as departmental enquiry which was held, as certain matters was obscure and wanted to further authentic elucidation from the record. From the record I have obtained which were latent and logical and legal effect have became lawful. It is now clear that there were three departmental enquiry orders dated 9. 2. 1966, 15. 2. 1966 and 19th March, 1966. According to order dated 12. 12. 1966 the first two enquiries have been dropped and it is obvious that the charges in them were overlapping.
(3.) THE charge for the first enquiry dated 19th March, 1966 related firstly for not joining at Jodhpur in pursuance of the order dated 2. 2. 1966 and remained absent. Secondly unsatisfactory service for which earlier charge-sheet was given on 9th February, 1966 and 16th February, 1966 and thirdly deliberate absence from duties relating to the disobedience of the Government orders and creating indiscipline. This charge-sheet was given on 19th March, 1966 and before that for two inquiries of dated 9. 2. J966 and 15-2-1966, the proceedings were going on. However, on 11. 12. 1966 the first two enquiries commenced on 9. 2. 1966 to 15. 2. 1966 were withdrawn. Now an important event which happened was the acceptance of apology and reinstatement in service by order dated 11th October, 1966 vide Ex. 4. This order of course mentioned enquiries about 19. 3. 1966 and 152. 1966 only and the enquiry initiated on 9th February, 1966 was not mentioned. The letter dated 11. 10. 1966 mentioned that enquiries which were commenced on 9. 12. 1966 and 15. 2. 1966 are dropped because Gulab Singh tendered apology and assured that he will behave properly. Obviously, the charges for which was called third enquiry conducted are biased no carrying out order dated 2. 2. 1966 which was kept upto 15. 2. 1966. The second charge in this third enquiry is about earlier 2 enquiries which was respectively dropped. The third charge is shown indiscipline and disobedience. ;