Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.: This appeal, by special leave, by the defendant-appellant is directed against the decree and judgment, dated October 25, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 4275 of 1965 holding that the order, dated March 10, 1964 passed against the respondent dismissing him from service, is null and void and that he is entitled to be reinstated with full pay and emoluments.

2. The respondent-plaintiff originally entered service with the appellant as a Technical Assistant in November, 1958 and later he was promoted to the post of Warehouseman on October 15, 1959. He was confirmed in 1962 in the said post. Certain charges were framed against the respondent and pending the enquiry into those charges he was placed under suspension on September 9, 1963. After an enquiry the respondent was found guilty and in consequence dismissed from service of the appellant by order dated March 10, 1964. The respondent instituted Civil Suit No. 201 of 1964 challenging the order of dismissal. According to him the various allegations made against him were vague and had not been established and there has been no proper enquiry conducted against him. The enquiry, according to him, was contrary to the principles of natural justice without giving him an opportunity to place his defence and it was also held in disregard of Clause 16 of the Regulations framed by the appellant. He also claimed that he was entitled to the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. On these allegations the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the order; dated March 10, 1964 dismissing him from service, was null and void and that he was entitled to be reinstated with full pay and other emoluments.

3. The appellant-defendant, in its written statement, pleaded that the enquiry into the charges levelled against the plaintiff was made properly and in compliance with the provisions of the Regulations and the plaintiff-respondent had been given full opportunity to participate in the enquiry which he also did. The appellant pleaded that the respondent was not entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. It also pleaded that the order of dismissal passed against the respondent was perfectly justified and that the suit was false and had to be dismissed with costs.

4. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. But it held that in conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer did not comply with the provisions of sub-clause (3) of Clause 16 of the Regulations framed by the appellant and that there had been a violation of the rules of natural justice. In consequence the trial Court held that the order dismissing the plaintiff was illegal; but in considering the question as to whether the plaintiff was also entitled to the further relief claimed by him, viz., of reinstatement with full pay and emoluments, the trial Court was of opinion that in view of Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 the plaintiff was not entitled to that relief. Ultimately the trial Court granted a declaration, by its judgment dated March 24, 1965 that the order of dismissal dated March 10, 1964 was void and ineffective and decreed the suit with costs.

5. The appellant challenged this decision in appeal before the Civil Judge, Mainpuri, in Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1965. The respondent filed a Memorandum of Cross Objections challenging the decree of the trial Court declining his relief for reinstatement with full pay. The learned Civil Judge, by his decree and judgment dated September 4, 1951 dismissed the appeal and allowed the Memorandum of Cross-Objections filed by the respondent. The result was that the plaintiff s suit was decreed, granting both the reliefs as prayed for by him.

6. The appellant again challenged the decrees of both the lower Courts before the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 4275 of 1965. The High Court has, by its judgment dated October 25, 1966 dismissed the ap