JUDGMENT :

1. It is an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’), questioning the legality, purity and proprietary of the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.6994 of 1987 dated 05.09.1997 by the Judge, Court No.10, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.

2. The appellant is the original defendant and the respondent is the original plaintiff. During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent expired and his heirs are brought on record. However, the heirs, having been served did not choose to contest this appeal.

3. The briefly stated facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 The plaintiff had joined the services in the defendant – Gujarat State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited in the year 1965 as Accounts Assistant. Lastly, he was working as Assistant Manager (Paddy) and he was posted on the head office of the Federation at Ahmedabad with effect from 09.04.1984. Prior to that, he was working as Assistant Manager (Processing) at Tarapur Rice Project.

3.2 That the plaintiff was dismissed for the deals taken place prior to 09.04.1984. At that time, plaintiff was not working as Assistant Manager (paddy) of the head office of the Federation. The plaintiff was suspended and a charge-sheet dated 12.12.1984 was issued to the plaintiff and he filed his reply to the charge-sheet on 26.12.1984 denying the correctness of the charge levelled against him.

3.3 That one Shri M.H. Jani was appointed as Inquiry Officer and one Shri P.R. Vyas was appointed as Presenting Officer and that for food grains, oil and oil seeds, a sub- committee of the defendant held its meeting on 14.9.1984 and passed the resolution to suspend the plaintiff from the services on the ground that he has committed certain irregularities in sale of rice and appointed a Committee of 3 Directors.

3.4 That all the three Directors had a personal grudge against the plaintiff and were interested in getting rid of the plaintiff. So, Committee has committed a bias and ill-founded report and copy of the said report was never supplied to the plaintiff although he has demanded.

3.5 That the plaintiff demanded copies of certain documents by several letters requesting the Federation to furnish copies of the documents. Inspite of the said request to furnish the documents, Federation did not furnish the copies of the said documents which were relevant and plaintiff had made it clear that on supply of these documents, he would appear for enquiry.

3.6 That without furnishing the documents, the Inquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte. recorded the evidence and has framed four issues on the basis of charge-sheet but in doing so, he has travelled beyond the charge-sheet and submitted a report dated 24.10.1985 holding the charges levelled against the plaintiff as proved, except the charge of purchasing 150 bighas of land. On the basis of said report, without issuing any show cause notice against the proposed penalty, the defendant passed order dated 28.10.1985 dismissing the plaintiff from the service of the Federation.

3.7 That the plaintiff had filed the suit before the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad being Civil Suit No.6994 of 1987 to get a declaration that the dismissal order dated 10/28.10.1985 passed by the defendant against the plaintiff is illegal, unjust, improper, void and ineffective and that the plaintiff continues in the service of the defendant for all purposes. It is also prayed that plaintiff may be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits like back wages, increments, etc. or in alternative, has prayed for mandatory injunction that if Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff cannot be reinstated in service, the defendant is liable to pay damages equivalent to the sum of money, which the plaintiff could have earned which comes to Rs.66,700/- till the date of the suit and has also prayed for damages at the rate of Rs. 2,900/- p.m. being the amount of salary, which he could have drawn.

3.8 The learned City Civil Cour