GEORGE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff Government servant, whose suit to set aside an alleged wrongful order of suspension passed by the Government and for consequential damages, has been dismissed by the court below. The plaintiff M.G. George was a special Proverthicar appointed by the Travancore Government for the purchase and distribution of paddy under Government orders. While thus he was attached to the granary at Elathur at Shencotta, orders were issued to him for the release for purpose of transport to Adoor, of 70 bags of paddy in a lorry. There was another Proverthicar Kochukunju by name, who had been deputed to take the paddy from Elathur. On the lorry being checked by a Police party after its start and within about two furlongs from the granary, it was found to contain an excess of seven bags. This was on 13-12-1118. The Tahsildar of the area examined in this case as D.W.1, sealed the granary soon after and conducted a stock check and so detected a large deficit in the store. The plaintiff and other Government servants who were connected with the transport were suspended on 26-12-1118 and enquiry was ordered against the plaintiff and Kochukunju as to illicit transport of Government paddy. The Excise Commissioner who was deputed to conduct the enquiry sent detailed report finding them both guilty. The Government thereon passed orders on I-7-1944 dispensing with the services of the plaintiff and Kochukunju, vide Ext. 17 order dated 1-7-1944. However on their complaint that they had not been given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses examined against them in the enquiry the Division Peishkar Quilon was authorised to conduct fresh enquiry. On his report dated 25-7-1947 and filed in case as Ext. 19, Government passed Ext. A order on 27-4-1949 modifying their prior order and suspending plaintiff and Kochukunju for two years from when they were first relieved from service, the rest of the period they were out of duty being treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Indeed the plaintiff had by this time on 24-11-1948 attained year of superannuation. He filed this suit on 2-6-1952 with prayer to set aside the order of suspension and for consequential reliefs based on the averment mainly that Ext. A order was wanting in jurisdiction and his suspension was in consequence wrongful.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the defendant State on the pleas that the plaintiff was found guilty after appropriate departmental enquiry and he was only properly punished and there was therefore no cause for him to complain and further that the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) The court below has after elaborate trial now found that there was nothing illegal or improper in the enquiry conducted by the Division Peiskhar and in the punishment meted out by the State as against the plaintiff and the suit was accordingly misconceived. It also found that the suit was hit by Art. 14 of the Limitation Act.