UNION OF INDIA Vs. KESHVA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.8.85 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi wherein the Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.43,789.50/-. The present appeal was filed in the year 1985. When the case was taken up for final hearing, the following orders were passed by the Court on 1st May, 06:

(2.) The necessary facts are that plaintiff was originally employed as a watchman in Railway Protection Force in 1952. Later on, he was promoted as Head Rakshak and then as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 1960. Plaintiff claimed that he had a clean record of service and was awarded cash prizes several times in recognition of his meritorious service. According to the plaintiff, a chargesheet was served upon him on 27.11.65 which was malafide and was result of some animosity shown by certain enimical persons. The plaintiff was removed from service vide order dated 7.1.67. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Chief Security Officer, Northern Railway but the same was dismissed. This resulted in filing of the suit by the plaintiff. The suit was also dismissed by sub-Judge vide its judgment and decree dated 25.5.76 against which the plaintiff preferred an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree under appeal. The case of the plaintiff was that the inquiry conducted against him was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the charges had not proved against him, thus, he claimed setting aside the order of removal from service and pray for all consequential reliefs including the higher pay for the intervening period. Plaintiff claimed, besides reinstatement, a sum of Rs.1,48,200/- on account of salary, allowances, pension, gratuity and damages. The suit was contested by the defendants and it was stated that he was removed in accordance with law. The order of removal was justified and with regard to his back wages, it was stated that as per regulation No. 2044-A(R-II) of the Railway Establishment Code Rules the plaintiff was entitled to only for three years wages preceding the date when he was exonerated on merits. It may be noticed that the suit of the plaintiff filed earlier for setting aside the order of removal was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 6.11.80. The District Judge further held that the plaintiff was entitled to full back wages. That judgment and decree had attained finality and was not questioned by the department. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed the present suit for recovery of money. Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court in the present case had framed the following issues:-

(3.) Keeping in view the evidence produced on record, the issues were answered in favour of the plaintiff partially and the suit was decreed to the extent of Rs.43,789.50/- while the claim for damages was declined. The learned Trial Court while recorded its findings as follows: "Besides the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority has to be struck down because the Competent Authority did not issue any notice to the plaintiff before passing the order. Clause 4 of Regulation No. 2044 of Railway Establishment Code requires that the Competent Authority may determine the amount payment to such employee after giving notice to the Railway servant of the quantum proposed and after considering representation, if any, submitted by such employee. In the present case the defendant has not pleaded that notice as required by clause 4 of Regulation 2044 was ever given to the plaintiff nor any such notice has been proved on record. It is thus evident that in passing the order determining the amount payable to the plaintiff, the competent authority did not follow the procedure prescribed by this regulation in as much as no notice as required by clause 4 of Regulation 2044 was ever served on the plaintiff. Therefore, the determination of the amount payable to the plaintiff is clearly in violation of the Regulation 2044 of clause 4 and, therefore, must be held to be illegal. I accordingly hold that the determination of the amount payable to the plaintiff by Competent Authority vide order whose copy is Ex. DW1/1 is invalid. These issues are decided accordingly in negative against the defendant. ISSUE No. 4. 14.The plaintiff claim of Rs.1,48,200/- was made up of following amounts:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_555_ILRDLH15_2006Html1.htm</FRM>