RAM KARAN Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant's suit for declaration and mandatory injunction qua his dismissal from service stood decreed by trial court but the first appellate court vide impugned judgment has reversed the trial court's judgment and has dismissed appellant's suit while holding that principles of natural justice have been complied with.

(2.) Factual narration finds mention in the impugned judgment and it needs no reproduction. Suffice it would be to note that appellant was a constable in Central Reserve Police Force and on 12th April, 1985, he was detained at E-Coy Quarter Guard at Mehrauli, Delhi and on checking by DSP Joginder Singh, appellant was found absent from duty. On account of the aforesaid absence from the duty, appellant was charge-sheeted and after a departmental inquiry, punishment of confinement to the line for 28 days w.e.f. 18th March, 1986 to 14th April, 1986 with punishment of drill and forfeiture of pay and allowances was inflicted upon him vide order of 14th March, 1986. It is the case of appellant that he had preferred a statutory appeal and revision against the afore-noted punishment inflicted upon him.

(3.) Upon refusal, of appellant to undergo the punishment awarded to him vide order of 14th March, 1986, another charge-sheet was served upon appellant on 18th April, 1986, followed by a departmental inquiry resulting in termination of his service vide order of 14th May, 1986. Statutory appeal as well as revision preferred by appellant against his dismissal from service proved futile. Thereafter, appellant had filed a suit for declaration that his dismissal from service was illegal. While decreeing the suit of appellant, trial court had held that principles of natural justice stood violated as appellant was not granted due opportunity to represent his case before the Disciplinary Authority and a mandatory injunction was issued directing reinstatement of appellant in service with all consequential benefits.