Lodha. J.—This is a second appeal by the plaintiff who has lost his case is both the Courts below.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated within a narrow compass.

3. The plaintiff appellant Kanyaiya Lal was posted as a goods clerk at Rly. Station Udaipur. He was prosecuted on a charge of bribery. During the pendency of criminal proceedings against him the plaintiff was suspended by the Assistant Traffic Superintendent ( Western Railway ), Udaipur by the tatters order dated 4 -5-1954 [Ex. 2] with effect from 5 5-1954. He was discharged by the Special Judge, Udaipur on 10-10-1954 for want of proper sanction and was reinstated by the department after considerable delay, on 20-10-1956. During the period of suspension he was paid subsistence allowance, but after his reinstatement, he claimed full salary for the period commencing from 5-5-1954, the date of his suspension, to 20 10-1956, the date of reinstatement and also other benefits amounting in all to Rs. 2437 50 p. The Divisional Superintendent rejected the plaintiffs claim by his order dated 27-5-1957 [Ex. 4] on the ground that he had not been exonerated and as such the period of absence from duty cannot be treated as period on duty, but would be treated as one urder suspention. The plaintiff went in appeal to the Cheif Commercial Supdtt. (Western Railway) but got no relief and ultimately he filed the present suit on 29-9-1959 for recovery of Rs. 2437.50 in the Court of Civil Judge, Udaipur.

4. The defendants viz. the Union of India and the General Manager, W. Rly.opposed the plaintiffs claim and pleaded that the plaintiff had been rightly allowed half pay during the first year of suspension and 3/8 the pay for the rest of the period.

5. The Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, to whom the case had been transferred, by his judgement and decree dated 10-12-1960, dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff filed appeal but the learned District Judge, Udaipur by his judgment dated 27-11 1963 affirmed the decree of dismissal of the suit by the trial Court. Consequently the plaintiff has come in second appeal to this Court.

6. The learned District Judge, held that the order of suspension did not automatically came to an end on the discharge of the plaintiff by the criminal Court as there was every possibility of his being prosecuted again after obtaining fresh sanction. He also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to get full salary for the period of suspension merely because there was delay in reinstating him. Lastly he held that if the plaintiff thought that the order of the competent authority disallowing full pay to him was bad and erroneous, the remedy for the plaintiff lies under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and not by a suit. In this view of the matter he did not give any finding as to whether the plaintiff was afforded a reasonable opportunity to prove his innocence and whether the impugned order disallowing full salary to him during the period of suspension was bad?

7. Learned counsel for both the parties are agreed that on the facts and circumstances of the present case the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 are not attracted. I would, therefore, now deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel.

8. The following two points have been urged on behalf of the appellant—

(1) That the order of suspension (Ex.2) automatically came to an end when the plaintiff was discharged by the Special Judge, Udaipur.

(2) That the plaintiff was not given reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed by the impuned order dated 27-5-1957 (Ex. 4) fixing the plaintiffs pay during the period of suspension, and consequently the order is liable to be quashed.

9. On the other hand, Mr. L.R. Bhansali learned counsel for the respondents has urged that the order of suspension enured even after the plaintiff had been discharged by the Criminal Court, in as much as the accusation persisted against the plaintiff even after his discharge and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document