MANUARU VEERASWAMI Vs. THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant, a peon in the Forest Department, for a declaration that his dismissal from service by the District Forest Officer was wrongful; for a direction to the Government to reinstate him in office, or in the alternative for Rs. 6,000 as damages. The suit was brought against the Government and also against the District Forest Officer, because it was alleged that the District Forest Officer had acted with malice. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the dismissal was not wrongful; and so he dismissed the suit with costs.

(2.) FOUR main objections have been raised to the decree of the lower Court. One is that fundamental principles of justice were violated in withholding from the appellant certain papers which had a bearing on the case and the absence of which hampered him in his defence. The second was that he was not allowed to appear by a vakil, the third was that he was not permitted to examine the District Forest Officer and his servants as his witnesses; and the last was that the provisions of Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act had not been complied with the consequence that the dismissal was illegal.

(3.) ON the question whether the appellant was entitled to be represented by a vakil, there is an authority of a Bench of this Court in Rajagopala Iyengar v. : AIR1937Mad735 that no such right exists. Two principal reasons were given by the learned Judges for the decision. One was that Rule 55 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, gave a right to be heard in person, which expression seemed to preclude a right of appearing through a pleader. The other reason was that there was no common law right of that nature and that the rules did not suggest that any such right existed. The learned Chief Justice said: