JUDGMENT

M.P. Savxena, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20-8-1974 passed by the learned District Judge, Dehradun.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant was appointed as Designer and was posted in the Design and Drawing Section of the Indian Institute of Petroleum, post Office Mohkampur, district Dehradun. He joined service on 23-4-1969. Sri M.G. Krishna is the Director of Indian Institute of Petroleum at Mohkampur and Sarvasri K.P. Rao and P.P. Ohri are in-charge Scientific section and Head of the Department and Immediate Officer of Scientific Section respectively.

3. Shortly after the appellant was appointed as Designer complaints of culpable misconduct and misbehaviour towards his seniors and subordinates started pouring in against him. The Director of the Indian Institute of Petroleum was apprised with those complaints and on one occasion the appellant even offered an apology and promised to behave properly in future but in vain. On 9-7-1971, Sri K.C. Rastogi, Section Officer, sent a report (Ex. Ka. 21) to the Director detailing the instances of misconduct and misbehaviour on the part of the applicant. It was also stated that if the action was delayed some unpleasant incident may take place. After considering all the allegations and arriving at the conclusion that they were prima facie correct and serious, the Director (Sri Krishna) passed an order on the same day (i.e. 9-7-1971) suspending the appellant with immediate effect as disciplinary inquiry was contemplated against him. This suspension order is Ex. 1.

4. On 24/28-7-1971 the Administrative Officer fixed subsistence allowance payable to the appellant. He was to get this allowance equal to leave salary admissible to him had he been on leave on half average pay plus usual allowances as admissible under the rules with effect from 13-7-1971 (fore-noon). This order is Ex. 2.

5. On 27-9-1971 the Director served a charge-sheet on the appellant requiring him to file his written statement within the time allowed. It is Ex. 3.

6. On 11-3-1972 the appellant filed a suit for declaration that the suspension order (Ex. 1) and the charge-sheet (Ex, 3) are illegal, void, without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. The validity of the suspension order and the charge-sheet were impugned on the ground of mala fides, illegalities and irregularities.

7. The defendants respondents denied the allegations made in the plaint and gave out that there was no malice or conspiracy nor the suspension order and the charge-sheet suffered from any illegality or irregularity. Certain other pleas were also taken.

8. After going through the material on the record the learned trial court held that there was no malice on the part of the defendants-respondents nor there was any illegality or irregularity in suspending or charge-sheeting the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed with costs.

9. The plaintiff filed an appeal reiterating the same pleas. After examining the contentions carefully the first appellate court negatived them and dismissed the appeal with costs. Hence this second appeal.

10. The only point canvassed before this Court is that the suspension order and the charge-sheet were given as a result of conspiracy and malice on the part of Sri Rao and Sri Ohri. Besides it, they suffered from certain illegalities and irregularities also. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the suspension order (Ex. 1) was the result of malice. It is important to state that the suspension order was issued by the Director of the Indian Institute of Petroleum at Dehradun who is the appointing authority of the plaintiff appellant. In the entire plaint no allegations of malice on his part were made. All that was set out in it was that Sarvasri Rao and Ohri bore grudge towards him for certain reasons and they manipulated to have him suspended and charge-sheet served upon him. There is n