GANGADHAR GURUSIDDAPPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant instituted Special Suit No. 16 of 1954 on 7-6-1954 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hubli (District Dharwar), for three declarations to the effect that the orders of suspension, of reduction in rank and of termination of his services passed respectively on 17-1-1950, 8-1-1951 and 27-3-1951 by the District Transportation Superintendent, Hubli, were illegal and void and that he therefore still continued in the service of the Southern Railways entitling him to the salary and the other emoluments according to rules.

(2.) The facts relevant to the appeal are not in dispute and they may be briefly stated: The plaintiff who entered the services of the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway was promoted to the post of Deputy Controller of Trains in 1945 and v/as substantively holding the same on the material date. On 15th January 1950 the plaintiff absented himself from duty. The District Transportation Superintendent, Hubli, wrote him a letter on the next day asking him to attend to duty immediatety and intimating that he would be suspended from pay and duty if he absented himself on that day. The plaintiff also received a telephonic message from the same Officer on 17-1 -1950 saying that he had been suspended from pay and duty as he had failed to present himself for work as required. He refused to accept a letter of the same date confirming the order of suspension. Another letter sent to him by registered post on 18-1-1950 was returned to the Officer on 21-1-1950 with the postal endorsement of refusal. A charge-sheet dated 11-2-1950 was served on the plaintiff calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from service or punished with any of the lesser penalties specified in Rule 1702 of the Railway Establishment Code and asking him to submit his explanation on or before 22-2-1950. The notice also intimated the plaintiff that in case he desired to be heard in person, he should express the same by substituting his explanation before the specified date. The plaintiff submitted his explanation dated 27-2-1950 stating that he had already Intimated on 14-1-1950 to the Chief Controller his inability to attend on 16-1-1950 and he could not have attended to his work subsequently in view of the order of suspension from 17-1-1950. He also stated that he was not in a fit condition to move out of bed and that the officer had no need to worry himself for an acknowledgment in writing of his order of suspension as his say had been communicated to him through the peon who had carried the letter to him. He further stated that the Officer might take any action if he was in a position to do so. The District Transportation Superintendent, thereafter passed an order on 17-5-1950 reducing the plaintiff to the scale of a clerk in grade Rs. 80 -- 160 for a period of three years and the plaintiff was called upon to join his duties in that post at once. On 21-5-1950 the plaintiff sent two Medical certificates but these private certificates were rejected by the authorities. Some correspondence ensued between the plaintiff and the Railway authorities. On 10-8-1950 the plaintiff was served with a second charge-sheet calling upon him to show cause for his absence and for his failure to resume duty by 20th July, 1950, as required of him. The plaintiff offered his explanation by letter dated 19-8-1950 stating that he had already been punished for a default similar to the one which had been mentioned in the second charge-sheet, that he had appealed to the Financial Commissioner of Railways on 12-7-1950 and that if the officed continued that enquiry the judgment on the point which was still to be decided by the appellate authority would amount to contempt of that authority. The Chief Operating Superintendent considered his explanation to be unsatisfactory and submitted all the papers to the General Manager for necessary action. The latter called upon the plaintiff to join his duty on or before 1-12-1950. But as the plaintiff failed to comply with the direction, he was informed to meet the General Manager on 23-12-1950. After the interview with the plaintiff, the General Manager modified the order of punishment by limiting the reduction in rank to a period of three months only and ordered the plaintiff to resume duty on 8-1-1951. The Chief Operating Superintendent communicated these orders to the plaintiff by letter dated 3-1-1951. The plaintiff addressed a letter dated 7-1-1951 to the District Transportation Superintendent (Traffic), Hubli, stating that as he had been paid only Rs. 160/- as his pay, it amounted to a compulsion on him to suffer the punishment imposed on 3-1-1951 for more than three months and that he should therefore be paid the substantial pay of Rs. 380/- from 8-1-1951 and that his work might be watched by trying him in the higher capacity as the Deputy Controller of Trains in which he had been confirmed from 1-12-1948. The authorities were not prepared to accept the terms proposed by the plaintiff and the District Transportation Superintendent informed the plaintiff by letter dated 9th January 1951 that he was not authorised to go beyond the provisions of the letter already sent to him on 6-1-1951 and that he should unequivocally indicate whether it was his intention to report to duty in accordance with the orders already passed. The plaintiff replied by letter dated 9-1-1951 that he was prepared to join duty at any time for any post on his former pay of Rs. 380/- per month. Owing to the plaintiff's failure to comply with the orders, the General Manager issued a communication to the plaintiff on 22-3-1951 stating that as he had not carried out the orders and had no inclination as disclosed by his subsequent letters to carry out the orders, his services were terminated with effect from 27-3-1951 and that he would be given a month's pay in lieu of notice in accordance with the terms and conditions of his service. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent certain representations for reconsideration and then filed the present suit after giving a notice to the Union of India on 10-2-1954 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The defendant filed his written statement as Ext. XI and denied the various allegations contained in the plaint. It was contended that the plaintiff had wilfully absented himself on the 15th and 16th January 1950 after sending notice of undertaking a fasting satyagraha, that his plea of sudden illness was not true, that the order of suspension was passed pending Departmental enquiry as the plaintiff wilfully absented himself from duty, that it was the Chief Operating Superintendent who ordered on 8-2-1950 the issue of a charge-sheet to the plaintiff for his unauthorised absence from duty and refusal to accept letters sent to him by the District Transportation Superintendent and that the order of reduction had been passed as the Chief Operating Superintendent and the General Manager had not been satisfied with the explanation offered by the plaintiff; the plaintiffs justification of his absence by subsequent production of medical certificates which were not acceptable to the District Medical Officer was unsatisfactory and it was only after further opportunities were given to the plaintiff that the General Manager confirmed the order of reduction in rank, limiting the period of such reduction only to three months. As the plaintiff did not join his duties even after 8-1-1951, the General Manager terminated his services by a notice dated 27-3-1951 after giving him one month's pay in lieu of notice according to the terms and conditions of his service. The plaintiff filed his rejoinder justifying his conduct 3a. At the trial the learned Civil Judge considered the documentary and the oral evidence placed before him and came to the conclusion that the order of suspension was legal, that the order of reduction had been passed after giving reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff, that the order finally terminating the services of the plaintiff was in pursuance of the terms and conditions of his service and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for by him. He accordingly dismissed the suit with costs by a judgment dated 30th June 1956. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, he challenged all the findings of the trial Court and prayed for a judgment in his favour in terms of his prayer in the plaint.