JUDGMENT

Ram Lall, J. - Mr. I.M. Lal instituted a suit against the Secretary of State for India in the Court of Lala Tara Chand Aggarwal, Sub-Judge, First Class, Lahore, for a declaration that an order removing him from the Indian Civil Service by the defendant was not passed in due course of law and was wrongful, illegal and ultra vires, and that notwithstanding this order the plaintiff was still a member of the Indian Civil Service and entitled to hold office as such and to enjoy all other rights and privileges as a member of this Service. Lala Tara Chand only struck a preliminary issue and at this stage both parties to the suit wanted it to be tried by the High Court. An application was accordingly made for transfer under Section 24, Civil P.C., on the ground that novel points of law of considerable difficulty dealing with the interpretation of the Government of India Act were likely to be involved, the oral evidence was not going to be corisiderable and as the matter would not rest with the decision of the original Court a transfer to the High Court would avoid the probability of a multiplicity of appeals and would be conducive to the convenience of both parties. This suit was accordingly transferred to the High Court by order dated 24th March 1948.

2. The suit was set down for trial before a Single Judge of this Court and as he considered that there was a likelihood of a Letters Patent appeal in a matter of great importance, the case should be heard by a Division Bench. Accordingly, papers were laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice who directed that the suit be heard by a Division Bench as a Court of first instance.

The plaint stated that the plaintiff was appointed to the Indian Civil Service in 1922 when he signed a covenant which contained the principal terms of his employment. He was informed in September 1937 that the Punjab Government proposed to hold an enquiry into his conduct under a. 55, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. Mr. J.D. Anderson, then Commissioner of the Rawalpindi Division held an enquiry on eight charges against the plaintiff and submitted a report in which he found him guilty on two charges, but held in effect that the other six charges, which according to the plaint were the only material charges, were not proved. The Punjab Government instead of proceeding on the basis of the finding in this report said that the enquiry was incomplete and appointed Mr. P. L. Brayne, who was then Commissioner Rural Reconstruction Punjab to "complete it." Apparently, as a result of Mr. Brayne's report the defendant ordered the removal of the plaintiff from the Indian Civil Service with effect from 4th June 1940.

3. The plaintiff contended:

(a) That the Punjab Government was not competent to order an enquiry into his conduct;

(b) that Rule 55 in terms of which the enquiry was held was no longer alive when the enquiry was ordered;

(c) that in any case after Mr. Anderson's enquiry no further or fresh enquiry by Mr. Brayne could be ordered;

(d) that even if Rule 55 was applicable, Mr. Brayne's enquiry was not such as is contemplated by that Rule;

(e) that in the course of this enquiry the plaintiff was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself;

(f) that neither the Governor of the Punjab nor the Punjab Government nor the Government of India nor the Federal Public Service Commission had any executive authority to deal with the plaintiff's case;

(g) that the defendant and his advisers also were not competent to deal with his case;

(h) that the defendant did not and could not act for His Majesty; and

(i) that not even His Majesty could remove him from the Indian Civil Service without an enquiry such as is contemplated by law.

4. The removal being thus wrongful he prayed for a declaration that the said removal was ultra vires, that the order was not passed in due process of law, was illegal and of no consequence and that he was still a member of the Indian Civil Service and entitled to hold office