The order of removal from service should be a speaking order indicating process of reasoning.

C. B. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the Union of India and cross-objections by the plaintiff are directed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 29th October, 1965, by which plaintiffs suit for recovery of arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 14895/- was decreed but the rest of his claim for declaration that his removal from service by the Loco Works Manager, Ajmer was illegal and inoperative and that he still continued in railway service was dismissed.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF Ramgopal joined service in the B. B. and C. I. Railway on 10th July, 1940, as a temporary fitter to which post he was confirmed on 28th January, 1941. He was temporarily promoted as a tool issuer on 15th July, 1946, and was confirmed in that post by the Works Manager, Loco, on 23rd October, 1946. On 9th April, 1953, he was removed from service by the order of the Works Manager, loco on the charge of removing castor oil from the railway. The plaintiff challenged the order of his removal in civil suit No. 133 of 1956 and the first appellate court holding that the report of the inquiry committee was not supplied to him in spite of his demand set aside the order of his removal as he had not been given reasonable opportunity of defending himself as envisaged under Article 311 of the constitution of India. It was further declared that the plaintiff still continued to be in the service of the said railway. Plaintiff was re-instated on 29th June, 1961, on the post of tool issuer, but on 3rd July, 1961 when he resumed duties he was again suspended and copy of the findings of the inquiry committee was supplied to him and further disciplinary proceedings were taken and eventually on 22nd July, 1961, the Works Manager, Loco again passed an order of his removal from service. This led the plaintiff to institute the present suit in forma pauperis. It was alleged in the plaint that the inquiry held against him was not proper and that he was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. It was alleged that the Works Manager, Loco, was not competent to remove him from service because on the assumption of management of the B. B. and C. I. Railway by the state, his appointment was made by the General Manager and as such no authority inferior in rank to that of the General Manager could remove him from service. The order of removal was also challenged on the ground that it did not give reasons for rejecting his defence and the order of his removal from service thus deprived him of his right of effective appeal against the said order of removal.

( 3 ) THE lower court framed a number of issues of which issues Nos. 1 and 3 were as under:--

1. Is the plaintiff entitled to get Rs. 14895/- on account of pay and allowances for the period from 9-4-53 to 2-7-61? 3. Is the order dated 22-7-61 removing the plaintiff from service void, illegal and inoperative for reasons given in para. 6 of the plaint?

( 4 ) AFTER trial, the lower court came to the finding that the order of removal of the plaintiff from service was not violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and was quite valid. It also held that the Works Manager, Loco, was competent to remove him from service. It further found that the plaintiff was not prejudiced in his right of preferring appeal against the order of his removal from service because no reasons were mentioned in it. The court, however, passed a decree in his favour for the arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 14895/ -. In the appeal preferred by the Union of India, it is contended that the plaintiffs claim for arrears of salary beyond a period of 38 months prior to the institution of the suit is barred by limitation. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court reported as State of rajasthan v. Ratan Lal Sogani, 1970 Serv LR 87 = (AIR 1971 Raj 142) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jai Chand Sawhney v. Union of India, 1969 serv LR 879 (SC ). In the first case it was held that Article 102 of the Limitation