Judgment

S. K. DAS, J. : This is an appeal on behalf of the Union of India which has been brought to this Court on a certificate granted by the learned Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer and is directed against the Judgment and decree of the said Judicial Commissioner, dated 15-2-1954. By that judgment the learned Judicial Commissioner reversed the decision of the courts below and made a declaration in favour of the respondent to the effect that the order of removal from service passed against him on 16-3-1949, was illegal and ineffective. The facts giving rise to the appeal are these.

2. The respondent, who was the plaintiff in the court of first instance, was appointed an assistant booking clerk at Ajmer in the then B. B. and C. I. Railway system on 15-7-1947. He was permanent on 26-5-1948. On 7-2-1949, the respondent received a memorandum from the Station Master, Ajmer, to the effect that he had been placed under suspension from that date under the orders of the Traffic Superintendent, Ajmer. It was alleged against the respondent that on that date he had refused to issue forty-eight third class tickets for Makrana to a passenger, unless the latter paid Rs. 2-1-0 per ticket as against the correct charge of Rs. 1-15-0 and that he had further refused to issue all the forty-eight tickets for that station. A charge sheet was drawn up against the respondent on 21-2-1949, with regard to the allegations referred to above, and he was directed to show cause why he should not be punished with dismissal from service under R. 1702 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. 1. This charge sheet was served on the respondent on 22-2-1949, and he was asked to submit his written explanation within seven days. The respondent submitted his explanation on 28-2-1949, and in that explanation he denied the allegations made against him. On 16-3-1949, an order was passed against the respondent stating that he would be given one month s pay in lieu of notice of removal from service with effect from 18-3-1949. This was the order impugned by the respondent in his suit and must be quoted in full.

"B. B. & C. I. Railway.

Notice of imposition of the penalty of removal from service under item (8) of Rule 1702.

From D. T. S. BKI.

To Jeewan Ram, Y 2093

R. A. B. C. AII

No. EY. 2093A.

You are hereby informed that in accordance with the orders passed by me you are given one month s pay in lieu of notice of removal from service with effect from 18-3-1949 A/N.

Date 16-3-49. Sd. D. T. S. BKI.

N. B. Please see reverse. P. T. O."

3. On the reverse appear the following notes :

------------------

"(b) Settlement of your dues will be made at Ajmer C/o. S. M.

(c) You will be given a subsistence grant at the rate of 1/2 of your pay for the period you remained under suspension i.e., from 8-2-49 to 18-3-49, both dates inclusive.

(d) Under Rule 1717 an appeal against these orders lies to T. S. Ajmer".

4. The Respondent preferred an appeal against the order, which was dismissed on 3rd August 1949. Then, on 17-10-1949, the respondent served a notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the General Manager, B. B. & C. I. Railway, and on 9-1-1950, the respondent brought a suit against the then Dominion of India in which he asked for the following reliefs :-

"(i) a declaration that the discharge of the plaintiff from service is illegal and arbitrary and that the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation claimed for;

(ii) for payment of Rs. 1120-9-7;

(iii) for payment of such amount as may fall due from the date of suit to the date of his re-instatement; and

(iv) for costs of the suit".

The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Ajmer, dismissed the suit on the findings (1) that the notice under S. 80, Civil Procedure Code, was not in accordance with law, (2) that the order of removal of the respondent from service was not illegal, and (3) that the respondent was not entitled either to claim re-instatement or damages. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge pronounced his judgment on 5-11-195