1980 Supreme(MP) 592

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.L. Oza, J.
Roshanlal – Petitioner
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
S.A. No. 181 of 1975 (I)
Decided On : 21-04-1980

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S. 100 – finding of fact – when may be interfered – findings based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – interference not called for.

       (2) Constitution of India – Art. 311 (1) – appointment by Tahsildar of Gwalior State – dismissal by Sub – Divisional – Officer – not bad in law.

        Short Note

       1. The facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that the plaintiff – appellant was appointed as a Patwari in the erstwhile Gwalior State sometime in the year 1944 – 45. Thereafter he continued to serve as a patwari on the formation of the State of Madhya Bharat and later on the formation of the State of Madhya Pradesh in 1956. The plaintiff was absorbed in the services of the department on the permanent basis. It was further alleged that a charge – sheet was served on the appellant on 30 – 8 – 1962 and after a departmental enquiry the Sub – Divisional Officer, Shujalpur came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the appellant were proved against him and, therefore, a notice to show cause was given to the appellant and after receiving reply of the appellant the Sub – Divisional Officer found him guilty of the charges levelled against him and thus passed the order of dismissal dated 28 – 3 – 1964. Against this the appellant preferred appeals and followed the departmental remedies and ultimately after giving notice under section 80 CPC the present suit was instituted.

       Held : The allegation in the plaint quoted above does not talk of appointment by Suba, but talks of "Ba Hukma Subat", that is, an older from the office of the Suba. Unfortunately, the order has not been produced. In the service – book (Ex. P/1) of the appellant his appointment is shown on 26 – 2 – 1945 and before that he was shown as 'Asthai', but it is not mentioned under whose order he was appointed. Exhibit P/12, which is another document on which reliance is placed and this is a certified copy of the register of Land Records Department of 1944. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in this register's entry it is mentioned "Takruri Adesh number Subat". But what is mentioned earlier clearly goes to show that this order only talks of his transfer and not of his appointment. The order referred to in this Ex. P/12 is said to be an order dated 10 – 2 – 1945; whereas the appointment alleged by the plaintiff is dated 26 – 2 – 45 as permanent and in 1944 as temporary. This entry in this register clearly shows that Roshanlal, who was a Patwari of Halka No. 20 was transferred to Halka No. 23 under "Takruri Adesh number Subat". This clearly. therefore, talks of some order from the Suba about transfer. This also talks of an order from the Subat, but net an order of the Suba. This document coupled with the averment made in the plaint does not clearly indicate that the orders of appointment of the appellant were issued and passed by the Suba of Gwalior State and the learned lower appellate Court after having considered all this evidence and other oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant was appointed by the Tahsildar and this conclusion could not be said to be erroneous. In view of what is mentioned in the plaint para No. 1 and the written statement para No. 1 and in the document, Ex. P/12 it does not appear that the Court below failed to consider these circumstances and thereby committed such an error in appreciation of the evidence which calls for an interference by this Court. All these circumstances clearly establish that the appellant was appointed as a Patwari by the Tahsildar of Gwalior State and on this finding the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that his dismissal by the, Sub – Divisional Officer is bad has no substance. Appeal dismissed.