HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
DAS, P. N. MUKHERJEE
RAMESH CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 70 Of 1948
Decided On : AUGUST 27, 1952
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935 - SECTION 240 - DISMISSAL OF CIVIL SERVANT - DISCHARGE OF RATIONING OFFICER - VALIDITY - DECLARATION - DAMAGES.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a Rationing Officer appointed by the Province of Bengal, was discharged from service without being given an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. He filed a suit for a declaration that the order of discharge was illegal and that he must be deemed to be still in service, and in the alternative, for damages for wrongful discharge.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the discharge of the plaintiff was invalid as it was in contravention of Section 240 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, which requires that a civil servant must be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him before he can be dismissed from service. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a declaration as it would not serve any useful purpose in the facts of the case, and that his claim for damages for wrongful dismissal was not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the discharge of the plaintiff was valid. 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a declaration that the order of discharge was illegal and that he must be deemed to be still in service. 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 240 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, requires that a civil servant must be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him before he can be dismissed from service. 2. The plaintiff was not given an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, and therefore his discharge was invalid. 3. A declaration would not serve any useful purpose in the facts of the case. 4. The plaintiff's claim for damages for wrongful dismissal was not maintainable.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, parties were directed to bear their own costs in the appeal except as indicated. The decree for full costs made by the Court below in plaintiff's favour was not challenged in this Court on behalf of the respondent and must stand.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree of Sri J. P. Mukherjee, learned Subordinate Judge 6th Court, Alipur, Dt. 24 Parganas, dated 3-2-1948.
( 2 ) THE suit out of which this appeal has arisen, was instituted on 18-12-1945 against the respondent, the Province of Bengal. The material allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiff was appointed a Rationing Officer by the Province of Bengal on a salary of Rs. 400/-per month, that his appointment was duly notified in the Calcutta Gazette by an order of the Governor, that by a letter dated 22-1-1944 the Deputy Controller of Rationing notified to him, his appointment as Rationing Officer, that he was posted at Panihati and acted as such till 5-6-1944, when he was transferred to Garulia, that on 9-7-1944, he received a copy of an order dated 6-7-1944, passed by the Controller of Rationing, to the effect that he was discharged from service. The plaintiff submitted that the order of discharge was illegal, arbitrary and 'mala fide', that the plaintiff was not informed about the charges laid against him, that no inquiry was made and no formal proceedings were drawn up as required by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, that the order purported to have been made on the basis of confidential inspection notes, that the plaintiff sent petitions to the Minister, Civil Supply Department and a memorial to the Governor but to no effect. The plaintiff then served a notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the order of discharge was 'ultra vires' and illegal, and that his service as a Rationing Officer still continues and that the plaintiff be reinstated in his posts as Rationing Officer with pay from the date of his discharge. In the alternative. . . . . . . . . the plaintiff claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 6906 annas 10 pies 8 for his wrongful discharge.
( 3 ) THE Province of Bengal filed a written statement and 'inter alia' pleaded that the plaintiff was discharged with the approval of the Government on the ground that his work was unsatisfactory, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the declarations prayed for or to any damages.
( 4 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge negatived the allegation as to 'mala fides' on the part of the Deputy Controller of Rationing. The learned Judge however, held that"the plaintiff was discharged without proper inquiry as to his competence, and without being allowed any opportunity to explain the charges of incompetence levelled against him. "
( 5 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge was, however, of the opinion that even if the plaintiff be a permanent Civil servant under the Crown and a Gazetted officer, non-compliance with Section 240, Government of India Act, did not entitle the plaintiff to the declarations prayed for.
( 6 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge seemed to hold that "as the rationing itself was a temporary measure" and the plaintiff was an old retired officer, the plaintiff's appointment was a temporary one.
( 7 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge further held that in case of temporary servants, an order of discharge could be made under Section 241 (2) (b), Government of India Act, 1935; but as no notice had been given, the plaintiff was entitled to one month's salary viz. , Rs. 400/ -.
( 8 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal.
( 9 ) IN the result, a decree for Rs. 400/- was passed in favour of the plaintiff.
( 10 ) THE decision under appeal was pronounced on 3-2-1948. Against this decision the plaintiff filed this appeal making the Province of Bengal as the sole respondent. While the suit was pending in the Court below, on 15-8-1947, India was partitioned. By virtue of Section 3, Indian Independence Act, (10 and 11, Geo VI C 30), the old Province of Bengal ceased to exist as from 15-8-1947, and in lieu thereof two new Provinces, to be known as West Bengal and
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.