( 1 ) IN this appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (Code for short hereinafter) the appellant/ plaintiff has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge (S. D.) at Junagadh on 2 in Special Civil Suit No. 199 of 1976.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein is the original plaintiff who had to initiate legal battle by filing the above suit against the respondent/original defendant-Union of India for declaration that the order of removal from service passed against him is null and void and resultant relief for arrears of pay and allowance etc. The plaintiff inter alia contended that he was working as a Khalasi-Painter in Traffic Workshop in Western Railway at Junagadh. He was charge-sheeted by the defendant-railway administration alleging that he had committed misconduct by remaining absent from service without permission for a period of about 19 months. Inquiry Officer was appointed. Inquiry was conducted. The plaintiff was found guilty by the Inquiry Officer. The report of the Inquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. A show-cause notice was issued to him for removal from service. Ultimately an order of removal was passed. Therefore the plaintiff rushed to the court.

( 3 ) THE defendant-railway administration appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement at Ex. 14 raising various contentions. The defendant inter alia contended that the plaintiff had committed serious misconduct and act of indiscipline and therefore he was punished departmentally under the relevant rules. It was denied that the inquiry/ proceedings were null and void. The action taken by the defendant was defended. The defendant further contended that in view of the serious and grave misconduct and act of indiscipline committed by the palintiff the removal order was justified. Allegations made in the plaint are traversed and the entire suit was challenged.

( 4 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the pleading of parties issues were settled.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff relied on his own evidence at Ex. 40. Defendant-railway administration did not examine any witness. The parties relied on documentary evidence of which reference will be made by this Court at the appropriate stage hereinafter.

( 6 ) THE Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record was pleased to hold that the impugned order of removal was not illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The suit notice was held to be legal and valid. Ultimately the suit came to be dismissed with costs on 2-5-1980.

( 7 ) BEING dissatisfied by the said judgment and decree the original plaintiff has now come up before this Court challenging its legality and validity by invoking the aids of provision of Section 96 of the Code.

( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant/original plaintiff has seriously criticised the approach of the Trial Court. It is contended that the Trial Court has committed serious illegality in dismissing the suit. This submission is repelled by the learned Counsel for the respondent/defendant-railway admini- stration.

( 9 ) IN order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions it would be necessary to have a close look into the relevant salient facts giving rise to the present appeal.

( 10 ) THE original plaintiff Lavjee Punja was working as a Khalasi-Painter in Traffic Workshop of the Western Railway at Junagadh in the cadre of Class IV service. The plaintiff was charge-sheeted on 11/16-8-1971 as he unauthorisedly remained absent for the period commencing from 7-1-1970 till the date of the charge-sheet by the defendant. Departmental inquiry was conducted. Inquiry Officer was appointed. The charge-sheet is produced at Ex. 19. It is a cyclostyled charge-sheet. At the foot of the 4th page the charge is mentioned which reads as under: he has absented himself without permission since 7 today which is a breach of discipline. He has not observed the formalities to send the Private Doctors Cer