The impugned termination order was found to be legal and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit was barred by the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965.

This appeal, preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and de cree dated 10-8-1979, passed by learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Civil Appeal No. 38 of 1978, whereby said appeal is allowed and judgment and de cree dated 11-11-1978, passed by Munsif, Lansdowne, in Original Suit No. 18 of 1972, is set aside and the suit is dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Bhairav Datta Dobariyal, insti tuted a suit for declaration that order dated 5-12-1969, passed by defendant / respondent no. 1, terminating his serv ices, is null and void. The plaintiff also sought his reinstatement in services with effect from 26-8-1969, with full pay and allowances. Factual matrix of the casa shows that plaintiff joined the defendant District Cooperative Bank in the year 1960-61 as Accounts Clerk. He has pleaded in the plaint that he discharged his duty honestly and promoted to the post of Cashier in the year 1962-63. In the year 1966-67, he was selected for managerial training and sent to Rajpur, Dehradun, for said purpose. In 1968, it is alleged by the plaintiff that he sent a complaint to His Excellency Governor, complaining about the irregularities com mitted in the Bank. It is pleaded that the then Manager of the Bank, Sri Harikrishana Dimri, got annoyed with the plaintiff and a false report of mis appropriation of funds of the Bank was sent by said Manager against the plain tiff. The plaintiff was placed under sus pension. Subsequently, a charge sheet was served on him, which included the charge of misappropriation of the Banks funds. It is pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff submitted his explanation, but without giving proper opportunity of being heard, his services were terminated vide resolution no. 2 dated 5-12-1969, by the Bank. Challenging the termina tion order, on the ground that the prin ciples of natural justice were violated, the suit was instituted before the trial court.

4. The defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement, in which it is pleaded that on 25-/- 1969, when Harikrishan Dimri, Manager of the Bank, inspected and verified the cash, it was found short of Rs. 5,863. 60/ -. The plaintiff could not explain the shortage. It is further pleaded that an inquiry was held under the bye-laws of the Bank and a special committee was constituted for the purpose. It is stated that the plain tiff was served with the charge sheet on 11-10-1969. The plaintiff did not sub mit

explanation within time. On this, fresh opportunity was given and ulti mately he submitted his explanation on 4-12-1969. Also, the plaintiff was personaly heard by the Board of Direc tors on 5-12- 1969, before the order of termination was passed against him. It is lastly pleaded in the written statement that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court :

(i) Whether this Court has no juris diction to try the suit ?

(ii) Whether the order, terminating the services of the plaintiff is il legal ?

(iii) Whether the Court had no juris diction to try the suit ? (It ap pears that this issue is framed twice ).

(iv) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ?

(v) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

(vi) To what relief, if any, the plain tiff is entitled ?

The trial court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit. It further found that the impugned order of termination was illegal. The trial court held that the suit was not barred by limitation nor was it bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, though there is mis- joinder of defendant no. 2, State. With these findings, the trial court de creed the suit, declaring that the im pugned order of terminating the services of petitioner, passed by defendant no. 1 is illegal. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document