The Director of Local Bodies was competent to terminate the services of the plaintiff and the order would be deemed to be an order passed by the State Government.

1. - This is a defendant's second appeal in a suit for declaration by a Civil Servant, which has been decreed by both the lower courts. It has been declared that the order dated 21-10-63 of the Director of Local Bodies, Jaipur terminating the services of the appellant was illegal, void and ineffective, and that he ,continued to be in service till the age of superannuation.

2. The plaintiff in his suit had prayed for declaration and also claimed a -sum of Rs. 5311 /- being the arrears of his pay and allowances. The lower Court, however, did not pass decree for the arrears of salary and allowances, but passed a declaratory decree. The plaintiff's case was that he was appointed in 1950 by the State Government as the Secretary to the Municipal Board, Bhawani-Mandi. In 1962 he was Secretary of the Municipal Board, Deeg. The Administrator of the Municipal Board was not happy with him because of his involvement in the local politics. The Administrator started taking work from the Sanitary Inspector and stopped paying high salary from 16-7-1962. After some time he was transferred from Deeg to the Municipal Board, Bari. He was relieved from Deeg on 23-10-1962. He did not move out and demanded payment of his salary and delivery of L.P.C.. Owing to non- compliance with this order of transfer, he was suspended on 12-1-1963 under an order passed by the Deputy Secretary, Local-Self Department, Jaipur. Neither any charge-sheet was served upon him nor any disciplinary proceedings were taken against him. He was, however, reinstated on 4-7-1963 and was transferred to Jaisalmer. He wrote a letter to the Chairman, Municipal Board, Jaisainter informing him that he was going to join his post shortly. In reply, he received a letter from the Chairman that he should join duties only after obtaining fresh orders from the Government. At this, he wrote to the Director, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, on 9-11-1963 for necessary orders. The Director did not pay heed to the matter and sent him a notice terminating his services with effect from 21-10-1963. Aggrieved by this arbitrary action on the part of the Director, the plaintiff after serving notice under Section 80, C P.C., filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bharatpur for declaration that the order of termination of services was totally illegal, ultravirus and inoperative. The, reasons were:-

1. That he was appointed by the State Government and the Director had no authority to terminate his services.

2. Neither he was served with a charge-sheet nor any show cause notice and there was violation of principles of natural justice in this arbitrary action.

3. Necessary legal formalities were not complied with in terminating his. services.

3. At that time he was getting salary of Rs. 170/- including Dearness Allowance. He, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 5311/- on account of arrears of his emoluments from 24-10-1962 to 25-5-1965.

4. The defendant in his written statement admitted most of the facts narrated in the plaint, but averred that the Director of Local Bodies had been vested with powers to terminate the services of Secretary and as such the- impugned order was valid. It was also averred that necessary legal formalities had been observed in dispensing with the services of the plaintiff. It was pointed out that as the plaintiff intentionally refrained from joining his duties at Jaisalmer, he was not entitled to claim any salary from 24-10-1962. The following objections were raised:-

1. The plaintiff has no cause of action against the State Government, as he was not a Government employee, but was a Municipal employee.

2. As the Municipal Board, Deeg had not been impleaded in the suit, the plaintiff's suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary party.

3. As the plaintiff failed to comply with the orders of transfer to Jaisalmer, his services were rightly terminated and as such he was not entitled to any such relief.

From the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial