( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the pltf. part of whose claim has been dismissed by the Civil Judge of allahabad.

( 2 ) THE applt. was successful in the competitive examination for the Provincial Civil Executive)Service. He was taken in service as a Deputy Collector and took over charge on 26-6-1940. In due course he was confirmed. In 1948 he was transferred from Dehra Dun to Ballia and in 1944 he was transferred to Lakhimpur Kheri. He joined his duties at Lakhimpur Kheri on 20-7-1944. On 23-8-1944 he was telegraphically suspended from service pending an enquiry into certain charges On 27 8-1944, a charge-sheet Was handed over to him and he was required to appear before the Comr. at Lucknow on 28-8-1944 for explanation. He appeared before the Comr. on 28-8-1944 and protested against the procedure adopted by him for the enquiry. The Comr. completed the enquiry on 1-9-1944, and submitted his report to Govt. On 11-9-1944, the Comr. recommenced the enquiry probably under instructions from Govt. On 30-9-1944, the Comr. after completing the enquiry submitted the papers to Govt. The Govt. on 25-11-1944 dismissed the applt. from the U. P. Civil (Executive) Service, with effect from that date. This order was served upon him at Allahabad on 1-12-1944. He submitted a memorial against the order to the Governor on 7-8-1945 and the memorial was rejected on 28-5-1947. During the period of suspension he was paid subsistence allowance at the rate of one-fourth of his salary which then was Rs. 310 per month. He then gave a notice as required by Section 80, Civil P. C. and on 2-1-1948, instituted the suit which gives rise to this appeal.

( 3 ) THE applt. pleaded that the order of dismissal was null and void because the enquiry conducted by the Comr. was improper and in violation of the provisions of Sub-section 55, (C. S.)Qualification Rules 1938, and no opportunity had been given to him to show cause against the proposed punishment. Originally he claimed two reliefs in the alternative. He wanted a declaration that the order of dismissal was wrongful, illegal, void and inoperative and that he still continues a member of the Civil Service entitled to full pay with all increments as and when they fall due, together with a decree for the arrears of pay from 24-8-1944 to 31-12-1947. (24-8-1944, was the date on which he was suspended ). In the alternative he claimed a declaration that the order of dismissal was wrongful and a decree for damages amounting to Rs. 1,20,000 for the wrongful dismissal with interest. He paid court-fee on the higher valuation of RS. 1,20,000.

( 4 ) THE suit was contested by the Provincial Govt. which denied that there was anything illegal or improper in the order of dismissal.

( 5 ) AT the time of the institution of the suit the law was thought to be that a person illegally dismissed from Govt. service could sue for damages for the wrongful dismissal but during the pendency of the suit the law was interpreted by the Judicial Committee quite differently and it was held that he could only get a declaration that the order is inoperative and that he still continues to be a member of the service. The applt. thereupon applied for amendment of the plaint by deletion of the alternative relief of declaration and damages for wrongful dismissal. The amendment was allowed and the suit remained one for a declaration and a decree for arrears of pay. The applt. applied to the learned Civil Judge that as the valuation of the suit was reduced, by the amendment from Rs. 1,20,000 to Rs. 16,810-8-0 (which was the amount of the arrears of pay), the execess of court-fee paid by him should be refunded under the Ct. s inherent powers. The learned Civil Judge by a separate order refused to refund the surplus court fee.

( 6 ) THE learned Civil Judge framed nine issues. Issue 1 related to the plea of territorial jurisdiction taken by the resp. , issue 2 related to the contention that a fresh opportunity should have been given to the applt. to show cause a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document