A notice under Section 80, C. P. C. must provide sufficient information about the nature of the suit, the reliefs sought, and the facts on which the claim is founded in order to enable the Government of India to reconsider its position and decide whether to accept or resist the claim.

T. S. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff arises in die following circumstances. The plaintiff was appointed in the Railway Security Force, which was later on converted into Railway Protection Force. He claim ed to be holding the post of bhisti in the Railway Security Force at the material time. Disciplinary proceedings were taken against him and he was served with a charge-sheet, which ultimately resulted into his dismissal from his service. He preferred an appeal against that order which was also rejected. Then he gave a notice dated 4th Dec. , 1968, through Sri Gopal Krishna srivastava, Advocate, to the General Manager, N. E. Rail-way, Gorakhpur. Thereafter he filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal.

( 2 ) IN the suit he claimed a decree for declaration that the order of "removal" from service dated 28/30th August, 1968, which Was served on him on 3rd Sept. , 1968, was illegal, void and ultra vires and against Arti cle 311 of the Constitution of India and that he should be deemed to be continuing in service with all wages and emoluments. He also claimed a decree for a sum of rupees 2,723. 57 p. towards his salary, the details of which were given in the plaint.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the Union of India on a variety of grounds. In para 19 of the written statement, it was pleaded by the Union of India that the notice under Section 80 of the Code of civil Procedure was defective and illegal. On merits as well the suit was contested. The trial court on consideration of the evidence adduced held that the order dated 28th Aug. , 1968, terminating the plaintiffs services was valid. It was also held that the notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was invalid. On these findings the trial Court dismissed the suit. The matter was carried in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge concurred with the trial Court that the notice given by the plaintiff under Section 80, C. P. C. was illegal and invalid. However, on merits of the case, the appellate Court below recorded a contrary finding. The appeal was, however, dismissed because the notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was held to be defective and invalid. The plaintiff has come up to this Court on second appeal.

( 4 ) THE sole point urged on behalf of the appellant was that the findings recorded by both the courts below in respect of the notice under Section 80 C. P. C. was erroneous. The submission was that the notice dated 4th Dec. , 1968, Ext. A-1, should have been construed liberally and not in a pedantic manner. The notice in question Ext. A-l, did comply, if not essentially with the principles of construction of notice under Section 80, C. P. C. with the requirements of Section 80, C. P. C. and was, therefore, a valid notice. The learned counsel for the Union of India disputed this assertion and submitted that the notice was bad inasmuch as it did not furnish the requisite basis on which the claim was founded and, hence, it lacked the cause of action and, therefore, the suit founded on that notice was not sustainable.

( 5 ) T have carefully gone through the notice, Ext. A-l and have also perused the plaint. Section 80, C. P. C. requires the giving of a notice to the Union of India before filing a suit against it. It mandates the plaintiff to state in the notice, besides other facts, the cause of action and the relief sought for. The plea questioning the validity of notice under Section 80, C. P. C. is often raised by the Government of India while contesting the suit filed against it. Hence the provisions of section 80, C. P. C. have come up for construction in a number of cases from time to time. In bhagchand Dagdusa Gujaraihi v. Secretary of State for India, AIR 1927 PC 176, it was pointed out that the terms of Section 80, C. P. C. should be strictly complied with. This ruling, however, was noticed by the Supreme Court in Dhian Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 274, wherein it was observed (at p. 261) :-

"the privy council no doubt laid down in Bhagcha