Back
Rajasthan High Court
C. B. BHARGAVA
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Ratanlal Sogani - Respondent
First Appeal No. 9 of 1960
Decided On : 08/08/1969
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311 - COURT OF WARDS - MANAGER - CIVIL POST - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - VALIDITY - LIMITATION - ARREARS OF SALARY AND DEARNESS ALLOWANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a manager in the Court of Wards, Ajmer, was suspended on allegations of misconduct and criminal offences. Sanction for his prosecution was also granted. Later, his services were terminated due to the release of the estate he was attached to from the superintendence of the Court of Wards. The respondent filed a suit for a declaration that the order of termination was void and for arrears of salary and dearness allowance.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondent was holding a civil post under the State and that the order of termination of his service was null and void as it was passed without following the procedure laid down in Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that the respondent was entitled to arrears of salary and dearness allowance for a period of 38 months prior to the institution of the suit, as the claim for the period beyond 38 months was barred by limitation.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was holding a civil post under the State. 2. Whether the order of termination of the respondent's service was valid. 3. Whether the respondent was entitled to arrears of salary and dearness allowance.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the respondent was holding a civil post under the State as the Court of Wards was a department of the State and the respondent was appointed by the Court of Wards. 2. The Court held that the order of termination of the respondent's service was null and void as it was passed without following the procedure laid down in Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which requires that a civil servant cannot be dismissed or removed from service without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. The Court held that the respondent was entitled to arrears of salary and dearness allowance for a period of 38 months prior to the institution of the suit, as the claim for the period beyond 38 months was barred by limitation under Article 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed and the decree passed by the lower Court was modified to the extent that there shall be a decree for a sum of Rs. 6460/- in favour of the respondent for his claim for arrears of salary and dearness allowance instead of Rs. 11323/-. Further the appellant shall pay interest to the respondent at the rate of 6% p. m. on the aforesaid amount from 14th July, 1960 to this date as per order of this Court dated 14th July, 1960.
JUDGMENT :- This appeal by the State of Rajasthan and the Collector, Ajmer against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 6th October, 1959, arises out of a suit instituted by respondent Ratanlal Sogani for a declaration that the order of termination of his service No. 1544 dated 11-5-1950 (Ex. A-10) is null and void and as such he should be deemed to be in service of the Court of Wards. Further a decree for arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 11323/- and Rs. 760/- spent by him in the defence of two criminal cases launched by the Court of Wards against him and a further sum of Rs. 2000/- as damages be passed in his favour.
The respondent alleged that he was a permanent employee of the department of the Court of Wards, Ajmer and was placed under suspension on 24th September, 1949 by the Additional Assistant Commissioner and Officer-in-Charge, Court of Wards, Ajmer on the pretext of facilitating thorough investigation into the complaints of misconduct against him and that on 8th April, 1950 sanction for the prosecution of the plaintiff for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was also given by the same officer.
But without holding any departmental enquiry and awaiting the result of the criminal cases, the Additional Assistant Commissioner, mala fide ordered the termination of the respondent's service, on 11th May 1950 vide Order No. 1544 dated 11th May, 1950. It was alleged that the order of termination of the plaintiff's service was a guise for his dismissal on the ground of alleged misconduct and was a fraud perpetrated on the constitutional protection guaranteed to the plaintiff under the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India and the various rules which govern his service conditions, that no opportunity as required by law was afforded to the plaintiff before the said order was passed and the principles of natural justice were not even followed. It was also alleged that in one of the criminal cases the plaintiff was discharged and in the other he was acquitted. The plaintiff, therefore, after giving a notice to the Chief Secretary, Government of Ajmer, State of Ajmer, the Deputy Commissioner, State of Ajmer and the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, instituted the present suit. It may be stated that the suit was instituted in the beginning against the Union of India, New Delhi. The Deputy Commissioner, State of Ajmer, Incharge Court of Wards, State of Ajmer and the Chief Secretary, Government of Ajmer, but subsequently after the merger of the State of Ajmer, into the State of Rajasthan the latter was impleaded as a party and the suit continued against the State of Rajasthan and the Collector, Ajmer.
2. The defendants contested the suit and it was stated that the plaintiff was only a temporary employee of the estates under the superintendence of the Court of Wards and was being paid by the estate to which he was attached, that he was not a civil servant and could not invoke the protection afforded under Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. It was stated that the order of suspension against the plaintiff was passed because there were serious allegations of cheating, fraud and drawing of bogus travelling allowance and so the matter was referred to the Anti Corruption Department who after enquiry found a prima facie case for his prosecution for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and pending enquiry into the allegations of misconduct, order of the plaintiff's suspension was passed. Subsequently owing to the release of the estate of Pisangan from the superintendence of the Court of Wards on 16th May, 1950 to which estate the plaintiff was attached his services were terminated by the department with effect from 16th June, 1950 because a consequent reduction in the establishment had to be made. It was also stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to any decree for the amounts mentioned in the plaint and that hi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
