LAL CHAND GOEL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's second appeal. He failed in boththe courts below (the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court) in thesuit seeking principally the relief of his reinstatement as a clerk in the office ofthe defendant, the Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA). TheD.D-A. is a statutory Corporation and was constituted under the DelhiDevelopment Act, 1957. Service conditions of its employees are governed bythe Delhi Development Authority (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions ofService) Regulations, 1961 (for short the Regulations) framed under the aforesaid Act. Under Section 53-B of the Act, no suit can be instituted againstthe D.D.A. in respect of any act done or purporting to have been donein pursuance of this Act or any Rule or Regulation made thereunderuntil the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been leftat its office and unless such notice states explicitly the cause of action, thenature of relief sought, the amount of compensation claimed and the nameand place of residence of the intending plaintiff and unless the plaint containsa statement that such notice has been so left at the office of the D.D.A. Nosuch suit is to be instituted after the expiry of six months from the date onwhich the cause of action arises. There is an exception by which notice canbe waived, but that is not applicable in the present case.

(2.) The plaintiff was employed as a lower division clerk (L.D.C.)in theD.D.A. on 12.4.1961 (Exhibit D-l). While so working, he, by letter dated2.11.1962 (Exhibit D-3), requested the Vice-Chairman, D.D.A., to work asdamages collector 'in the vacancy caused Shri D.N. Verma who has sincebeen relieved'. The plaintiff, offered to deposit the necessary security. He wasthereafter appointed damages collector and by reference of his letter dated20.11.1962 (Exhibit D-4), he pledged 12 years national plan certificate infavour of the D.D.A. On 14.9.1962, the plaintiff was transferred from theGeneral Administration Section to the Land Section (Exhibit D-ll). He wasdeclared quasi permanent as from 1.7.1964 (Exhibit D-5) while workingin the Damages Section. He was appointed to officiate as upper division clerk(U.D.C.) on provisional basis by office order dated 5.10.1966 (Exhibit D-6).The plaintiff was still shown to be working in the Damages Section. By theoffice order effective from 1.5.1967 (Exhibit D-7),) various L.D.Cs. wereappointed to officiate as U.D.Cs. but in the case of the plaintiff he was directedto be reverted as L.DC. Earlier, by order dated 12.4.1967 (Exhibit D-2), theplaintiff was placed under suspension with immediate effect by the Vice-Chairman, D.L).A., in exercise powers conferred upon him by Regulation 13(1) of the Regulations. It was mentioned that disciplinary proceedingswere contemplated against the plaintiff. By letter dated 22.5.1967 (Exhibit P-2),the plaintiff was informed that it was proposed to hold an inquiry against, himunder Regulation 16 of the Regulations. He was served with statement ofarticles of charge (Exhibit P-2/A), statement of imputations of misconduct ormisbehaviour in support of articles of charges (Exhibit P-2/B), list of documents (Exhibit P-2/C) and list of witnesses (Exhibit P-2/D). It will beappropriate to reproduce the statement of articles of charges framed againstthe plaintiff at this stage itself :

(3.) The plaintiff sent a notice dated 11.6.1969 (Exhibit P-9) addressedto the Chairman, D.D.A. through an Advocate and described it as 'noticeunder Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code'. By this notice, the plaintiffcalled upon the D D.A. to reinstate him to his U.D.C's posts as was held by-the plaintiff at the time he was suspended from service and to pay to himdamages equal to his full salary of his service ..during the relevant period. Theplaintiff, in this notice, referred to the inquiry held against him and said thatthough in the inquiry case was not proved against him he was still dismissedfrom service against law and the rules of natural justice. He said, his' appealwas also dismissed without providing him any opportunity for his defence.He also complained that he was illegally reverted as L.D.C. during hissuspension which was also in violation of the provisions of law and the rulesgoverning his service. He termed his dismissal from service as illegal, ultravires and arbitrary. Since there was no response to his notice, the plaintifffiled the present suit. It was filed on 26.8.1969, and, in the first instance,it was a suit for declaration with consequential relief He sought a declarationthat his dismissal was illegal and that he was entitled to be reinstated asU.D.C. with full salary from the date of his suspension. He also sought adeclaration that his reversion 'to the post of L.D.C. by order dated 29.4.1967was also illegal. During the pendency of the case, the plaintiff got his plaintamended, and by this amendment he also wanted a decree for Rs. 4.460.00 beingthe amount of emoluments to which be was entitled from the dale of bissuspension to the date of filing of the suit, as UDC.