Judgment.-The facts of this case are simple and further not many. They lie in a short and narrow compass and require but a brief statement. The plaintiff was a clerk in the service of the defendant, the Andhra University, down to 3rd January, 1940, the date of his dismissal by its Vice-Chancellor, Sir C.R. Reddi, after his inquiry into the offence of theft of a B.Ed., diploma from the record of the University of which he found the plaintiff guilty. On appeal taken by the plaintiff to the Syndicate, the Syndicate finding no power of dismissal vested in the Vice-Chancellor treated his order as a recommendation which it accepted by its order dated 20th June, 1940, after constituting a Committee to go into the matter and obtaining a report from it without any independent inquiry by the committee. The plaintiff thereupon sued for a declaration that the orders were unjust and illegal. The defendant resisted the suit by pleading that the orders were just and legal, as also that the suit for a bare declaration was not maintainable without a consequential prayer as for damages. The Additional Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam who tried the cause held the dismissal to be wrongful for want of an inquiry by the Syndicate notwithstanding the fairness of the inquiry by the Vice-Chancellor and on the ground of a violation of rules of natural justice by the Syndicate in that neither the Syndicate nor the Committee appointed by it gave the plaintiff any chance of any hearing of his case or any notice to show cause why the dismissal order of the Vice-Chancellor should not be treated as a recommendation which it might accept and act upon. The learned Subordinate Judge however nonsuited the plaintiff on the ground that even assuming the suit for a bare declaration to be otherwise maintainable, no declaratory relief could be granted to the plaintiff who had already earned employment elsewhere, since the granting of such relief would only serve as a stepping stone for further litigation to get himself restored to his position before dismissal which must end in a futility. On appeal by the plaintiff to the learned District Judge of Vizakapatnam, that Judge reversing the trial Court has held that the jural relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff was the ordinary one of master and servant under which the servant can always be dismissed for misconduct which however is a matter for proof by the master in Court when the dismissal is challenged, and that the suit for a mere declaration was maintainable and would not end in a futility, as the declaration, if granted, although ineffective to reinstate the plaintiff except on the good sense of the master, would be a valuable gain to him as a vindication of his character. In the result, the learned District Judge remanded the case to the Court of first instance for the trial of an additional issue framed by him, “Was the plaintiff guilty or not guilty of the charge of theft made against him?”, and for fresh disposal of the suit in the light of the finding to be recorded by the trial Court on that issue. Against the order of remand by the learned District Judge the defendant has preferred this appeal.

Although in the initial stages of the argument stress was laid by Sri Alladi Krishnaswami Aiyar, learned counsel for the appellant, on cases like Lennox Arthur Patrick O’Reilly v. Cyril Cuthbert Gittens1, laying down that:

"Provided that a domestic tribunal (like the stewards of a turf club) does not exceed its jurisdiction and acts honestly and in good faith, the civil Court cannot intervene, even if it thinks that the penalty is severe or that a very strict standard has been applied ".

Learned counsel in the later stages of the argument gave up such stress, maintaining only that, if as also contended by him, the contract of service in the present case is to be regarded as containing an implied term that the defendant should have the power to dismiss the plaintiff on due inquiry into suspected misconduc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document