SHRI K. K. MITTAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi reversing that of the learned trial Court made in the suit filed by the appellant for a declaration that the termination of the services of the appellant was void and for certain other reliefs.

(2.) The suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, was for a declaration to the effect that the order of the termination of the services of the appellant was void; that the appellant was entitled to be treated as having throughout continued in service and for a decree for Rs. 2,358.72 on account of arrears of pay and allowances together with interest at 6% per annum and in the alternative for a claim of 4 months' salary on account of gratuity on account of 12 years' complete service and was grounded on the allegations that the appellant joined the service of the Rehabilitation Department with effect from July 19, 1948 and after having worked in various posts in the Department upto June, 1958, was posted as Managing Officer-cum-Assistant Custodian at Delhi with effect from July 1, 1958; that while working as Managing Officer-cum-Assistant Custodiam in the Ministry of Rehabilitation at Delhi, the appellant was charge-sheeted and suspended on the basis of a complaint against one of the subordinates of the appellant; that the appellant was eventually exonerated in the enquiry into the charge as a result of which the subordinate was found guilty; that agreeing with the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority exonerated the appellant of the charge framed against him but in the order reinstating the appellant directed that for the period of suspension, the pay and allowances of the appellant would be restricted to the amount of the subsistence allowance already drawn by him and that the period of suspension be treated for all other purposes as spent on duty. By the said order, the appellant was also warned for alleged carelessness and was directed to report on duty to the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur for further posting; that the appellant could not, however, join duty at Jullundur as no post was found vacant there and the appellant was advised to proceed on leave which he did; that the appellant was eventually posted to another post in Ambala but there also the vacancy was filled up before the appellant could take charge and the appellant had to take further extension of leave and while still on leave, his services were purported to have been terminated by notice under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1949.

(3.) The impugned order purporting to terminate the services of the appellant was challenged on the grounds that: