Judgement

IMAM J.: This is an appeal against the decision of the Allahabad High Court affirming the decision of the Civil Judge of Allahabad.

2. The appellant was appointed to the United Provinces Civil (Executive) Service in1940 and in due course was confirmed. He was posted to various stations and in 1944 he was posted to Lakhimpur Kheri, where he joined in July 1944. On 23-8-1944, the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpur Kheri received a telegram from Government informing him that the appellant was suspended forthwith pending inquiry into his conduct and that a copy of the telegram was forwarded to the appellant for information. On 26-8-1944, the Deputy Commissioner wrote to the appellant that he was required to appear before the Commissioner of the Lucknow Division on 28-8-1944, to answer the charges, a copy of which would be forwarded to him. He further informed the appellant that he could treat his case under rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules of 1930, published in the United Provinces Gazette of 28-6-1930.

The appellant was further informed that in view of his suspension his leave application was cancelled. On 28-8-1944, the appellant appeared before the Commissioner at Lucknow and protested against the procedure adopted by him for the inquiry. The Commissioner having completed the inquiry on 1-9-1944, submitted his report to Government. The Commissioner, however, recommenced the inquiry on 11-9-1944, and after completing the inquiry submitted, the papers to Government on 30-9-1944.

The Government of the United Provinces by an order dated 25-11-1944, dismissed the appellant from the United Provinces Civil (Executive) Service. This order was served on the appellant on 1-12-1944, and he submitted a memorial to the Governor on 7-8-1945, which was rejected on 28-5-1947. During the period of suspension the appellant was paid subsistence allowance at the rate of one-fourth of his salary which was then Rs. 310 per month.

3. The appellant gave notice under S. 80, civil P. C. of his intention to bring a suit and on 2-1-1948, he filed his suit. He asked for a declaration that the order of dismissal was wrongful, illegal, void and inoperative and that he still continued to be a member of the Civil Service entitled to full pay with all increments as they fell due. He prayed for a decree for recovery of arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 16, 810-8-0 less subsistence allowance already drawn from 24-8-1944, to 31-12-1947.

In the alternative he prayed for a declaration that the order of dismissal was wrongful and that a decree to the extent of Rs. 1,20,000 with interest by way of damages may be passed in his favour. He paid the requisite court-fee on the valuation of Rs. 1,20,000. This alternative claim was deleted from the plaint as a result of an amendment having regard to a subsequent decision of the Privy Council which held that a person illegally dismissed from Government service could only get a declaration that the order was inoperative and that he still continued to be a member of the Service.

4. The appellant asked for refund of the extra court-fee paid which was rejected by the Civil Judge by a separate order. The Civil Judge, however, decreed the appellant s suit in part declaring that the order dismissing him from service was illegal and that he still continued to be a member of the United Provinces Civil (Executive) Service. The Civil Judge, however, declined to pass a decree for arrears of salary.

5. Against the decision of the Civil Judge the appellant appealed to the High Court and his appeal was dismissed. The respondent did not appeal against the decision of the Civil Judge or file a cross-objection. The appeal in the High Court proceeded on the basis that the order of dismissal made against the appellant was illegal and that it was rightly declared that he continued to be a member of the service of the United Provinces Civil (Executive) service.

The only two questions which were considered and