UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAMJISINGH TILAKDHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been directed against the appellate judgment pronounced by the learned District Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Regular Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1979 dated 22/01/1980 confirming the judgment and decree pronounced by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad in Regular Civil Suit No. 61 of 1978 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant. The substantial question as formulated by this Court runs thus :

(2.) Plaintiff Ramjisingh Tilakdharisingh had filed a suit against Union of India represented by General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay, before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Valsad, which came to be registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 61 of 1978. The plaintiff had approached the Court against the defendant by urging that he was employed as a Rakshak in Railway Protection Force with effect from 15/03/1957 and thereafter had obtained a gradual promotion and at the relevant time was working in the position of a Head Rakshak. On 8/04/1977 he was posted on duty at Parel Railway Station and has some quarrel between him and the Sub- Inspector D. M. Madane. Later on the plaintiff was charge-sheeted for the alleged misconduct and the Security Officer, Baroda, had conducted the inquiry against him vide orders dated 11/05/1972 in pursuance of the provisions contained in Sec. 9(1)(1)(2) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and Rule 45 of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959. Vide orders dated 1/09/1972, two increments were ordered to be stopped without the future effect. The plaintiff thereafter had preferred the appeal on 20/10/1972 before the Chief Security Officer and had asked for the personal hearing also. The Chief Security Officer by his orders dated 15/09/1973 had felt that the penalty imposed on the plaintiff was too lenient and, therefore, in exercise of the powers under Rule 58 of R. P. F. Rules, 1959, the plaintiff was called upon to show cause as to why the penalty should not be enhanced. The plaintiff had submitted his reply against the above said notice on 11/10/1973 and had submitted that the incident had taken place because of the unhealthy attitude of the superior officer. The Chief Security Officer vide his orders dated 29/11/1973, had ordered a fresh inquiry. Accordingly a fresh inquiry was started and the plaintiff had submitted his reply or the explanation. The Chief Security Officer had imposed the punishment or the penalty of the reduction of the rank from H. R. K. to that of S. R. K. for a period of 2 years. Any how the Chief Security Officer by the orders dated 21/03/1975 had cancelled or discharged the above said show cause notice at Exh. 24 and hid ordered that some further inquiry be made. Thereafter on 6/04/1975 the statement of Mr. Madane was recorded. The Chief Security Officer had come to the conclusion that the guilt of the plaintiff was duly established and, therefore, he was served with a show cause notice for the removal from service which is at Exh. 42. The plaintiff had replied the above said show cause notice on 9/12/1975 vide Exh. 43. The Chief Security Officer, by his orders dated 1/01/1976 had ordered the removal of the plaintiff from service. By filing the above said suit the plaintiff had called in question the legality and validity of the above said orders of removal. He had prayed for a decree for quashing and setting aside the above said orders of removal and also prayed for the reinstatement in the service as if he had continued in the service without the break with all the benefits available to him.

(3.) The defendant-Railway Administration had appeared before the learned trial Judge and had challenged the case of the plaintiff by filing the W. S. at Exh. 11, inter alia contending that the plaintiff was guilty of a grave misconduct inasmuch as he hid used improper language for Sub-Inspector Mr. Madane who was holding a higher post than the plaintiff. It was also contended on behalf of the defendant that, looking to the grave allegations against the plaintiff he deserve severe punishment.From the abovesaid pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge had framed issues at Exh. 12 and after the appreciation of the evidence on record the learned trial Judge had come to the conclusion that the orders under challenge removing the plaintiff from service were bad in law, without jurisdiction, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice. In view of this finding, the learned trial Judge had expressed the opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to the prayers as prayed for by him. The learned trial Judge therefore by the judgment dated 28/03/1979 has decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant. The orders of termination of service of the plaintiff were quashed and set aside and the plaintiff was directed to be deemed to be in the continuous service. He was also directed to be reinstated in service with all the benefits available to him.