GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. BHAGVANJI VASHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A substantial question of law arises neatly in this second appeal which was argued elaborately extensively and at the same time gracefully by the learned Advocates M/s Pandya and Vyas appearing for the appellants and the respondent respectively.

(2.) In order to understand the controversy at the base of this litigation a few facts require to be neatly stated. The respondent plaintiff was serving as a Conductor at the Veraval Depot in the year 1964 and earlier in the time scale of Rs. 80-160. On 20-10-64 he was alleged to have assaulted the Depot Manager of Veraval to which he was attached. He was then arrested by Police in connection with the said incident and on 26-11-64 when he went to resume duty at the Depot he was not permitted. On 26-11-64 he was given an accusation about the alleged assault. On the same day he was asked to give his statement which was recorded in the form of questions and answers A tentative decision was reached and on that very day he was given a show cause notice why he should not be dismissed from service. The plaintiff gave his reply to the second show cause notice on 27-11-64 and then there came to be passed the order of dismissal of the plaintiff from service. The said order is stated to be dated 27-11-64. Two successive appeals were resorted to by the plaintiff but they had come to be rejected respectively on 27-11-65 (one year after the date of dismissal) and on 2-1-67. The plaintiff took this lying down and then filed the present suit No. 274 of 1976 on 3-12-76 in the court of the Civil Judge (J. D.) Porbandar against the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and its Divisional Controller as the two defendants. In the suit it was mentioned that the enquiry was a farce it was against the principles of natural justice and the Rules of the departmental enquiry were flagrantly violated and that the order of his dismissal was void ab initio. It was further stated that the appellate orders were also bad and void because they were non-speaking. In paragraph 8 of the plaint the plaintiff had then stated that as the orders were illegal unconstitutional and violative of the principles of natural justice they were inoperative also and were not binding the plaintiff and so the plaintiff continued to hold that post of a conductor of the Corporation and was entitled to claim all the benefits including those of salary right from 27-11-64 on which date he was factually put out of job. In paragraph 9 he stated that his salary for the period from 1-12-73 to 30-11-76 (three years period) was coming to Rs. 8100.00. In paragraph 10 he stated that the cause of action had accrued to him from day to day earlier and also from 7 12-73 continuously. Then paragraph 12 which contains the relief clauses follows which is reproduced by me as duly translated :-

(3.) The suit was hotly contested by the Corporation and one of the points specifically raised and which the subject matter of an independent issue also was that the plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation. The learned trial Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit by ordering as follows :