DIRECTOR Vs. SAVITABEN MULJI RAICHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is at the instance of Director, Gram Vikas & Panchayat Raj Bhavan, Shashikunj, Junagadh and State of Gujarat against the judgment and decree dated 25.09.1992 passed by Joint District judge, Junagarh in Regular Civil Appeal No. 167 of 1989 whereby the appeal of the present appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in regular Civil Appeal No. 1016 of 1987 came to be confirmed, wherein the Trial Court has declared the order at Exhibit 29 and 30 terminating the services of respondent as illegal and bad in law and the respondent was held entitled to be in continuous service with all other consequential benefits for the post of class IV servant.

(2.) IT was the case of respondent -plaintiff before the trial Court in the suit that the respondent had been serving as a 'Cook' with appellant No.1 since 10.04.1982, that her husband was also appointed as Chief Cook and both were alloted residential accommodation, that the services of her husband was put to an end by taking compulsory resignation and the respondent -plaintiff was being pressurized to vacate the residential house, however, since the respondent felt it not necessary to vacate the residential house, appellant No.1 without any reason terminated her services. It is the case of the respondent that her appointment was through regular channel and her services were terminated without following due process of law.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the appellants stating that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit, that the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the suit, that the respondent was serving as Assistant Cook purely on temporarily basis on fixed salary of Rs.200 per month and she has not reported for duty from 14.12.1987 and, therefore, her services came to terminated on 15.12.1987, that prior to filing of the suit, no notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was served to the appellant, that on the basis of the complaint of Training Officer the services of the respondent was terminated but the respondent was taken back in service on 1.11.1993 again on fixed salary of Rs. 150 and thereafter from 1.02.1984 the respondent has been serving on fixed salary of Rs. 200 with her husband and that the respondent had taken quarrel with her husband and she was, therefore, transferred to Panchayati Raj Training Centre, there was also no improvement in her conduct and, therefore, the appellants were constrained to terminate the services of the respondent on the basis of the misconduct. The Trial Court has framed following issues at Exhibit 14 and answered each of the issues separately.