N M SIDDIQUE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On Aug, 26, 1938, the appellant was appointed as a clerk by the Divisional Superintendent, East Indian Railway and was confirmed in that post on Aug. 26, 1939. On May 13, 1948 while he was working in the grade of Senior Clerk in the Establishment (Personnel) Branch, his name was put on a panel which was prepared or considering promotions to Selection Posts of Grade I Clerks for the Personnel Branch of the Divisional Superintendent"s Office, Lucknow. The appellant officiated twice in the Selection Posts of Grade I. On July 13, 1948, he was again put on a panel for being considered for promotion to the post of Grade I Clerk in the same "Group" of the Service as controlled by the Headquarter"s Office.

(2.) During the course of the Selection proceedings in 1948 a complaint was made against the appellant that he had drawn ration on the ration cards of porters who had already been discharged from service. A preliminary enquiry was held by the Railway Authorities into that complaint as a result of which the appellant was suspended from service. Later, by an order dated October 20 1948, the Divisional Superintendent removed the appellant from service.

(3.) On Sept. 5, 1949, the appellant filed Regular Suit No. 748 of 1949 in the Court of the Munsif (South) Lucknow for a declaration that his dismissal from service was wrongful and for arrears of salary. That suit was dismissed on Aug. 20, 1951. An appeal therefrom was also dismissed by the Civil Judge on May 31, 1952. The appellant then filed a Second Appeal in the High Court which met with the same fate. The learned single Judge, however, granted leave to the appellant to file a special appeal to a Division Bench, in pursuance of which the appellant filed Special Appeal No. 14 of 1954 in the High Court. By judgment dated April 22. 1955, the Division Bench allowed the special appeal on the ground that the Divisional Superintendent was not competent to terminate the appellant"s service as that power was vested in the General Manager only. The Division Bench, therefore, remanded the matter to the learned Civil Judge for determination of the amount which was due to the appellant on the basis that he was wrongfully dismissed from service.