UNION OF INDIA Vs. JAYARAM DAMODHAR TIMIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of Rajagopala Aiyangar J. in a suit on the original side of this court. C. S. No. 11 of 1952, filed in forma pauperis by the respondent, Jayaram Damodar Timiri, for the recovery of sums of money from the Union of India in the following circumstances. The plaintiff- respondent was appointed temporary clerk in the Military Accounts section of the Defence department of the Union of India on 6-9-1943. It is common ground that one of the terms of the appointment was that if the Government or the appointing officer shall at any time become desirous of dispensing with the service of the employee, the Government or the appointing officer shall give the employee one calendar month's notice in writing of such desire, and the Government or the appointing officer may, at any time without notice, dispense with the services of the employee for gross misconduct, of which misconduct the officer dispensing with the services of the employee shall be the sole judge. On 20-6-1947, the plaintiff was placed under suspension pending investigation into certain charges of defalcation against him. A case was laid against him before the Magistrate at Poona in July 1947, but it was withdrawn. Subsequently, a second chargesheet was preferred against him in December 1948, before the Resident Magistrate of Poona who committed him to be tried in the sessions court for offences under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge of Poona who tried the case passed an order on 23-61950 acquitting the accused. It may be mentioned that the case was tried with a Jury in so far as the offences fell under Ss. 447 and 471 I.P.C. The jury and the assessors were unanimously of opinion that the plaintiff was not guilty of the offences with which he was charged. Though the acquittal was on 23-6-1950, the plaintiff was not reinstated in spite of requests from him. Finally, on 29-8-1950 two orders were passed. One of them ran thus: " Sri T. D. Jayaraman (plaintiff) A/c. No. 23933, temporary U. D. C., who is undr suspension, is reinstated in service on 1-9-1950. The subsistence allowance and the dearness allowance up to and for 31-81950, paid to him have been treated as the salary and allowances to be paid to him for the period of suspension under Art. 193(b) C. S. R." The second order passed on the same date ran thus: "T. D. Jayaraman, Ty. U. D. C., who was under suspension and has been reinstated in service (vide part 1, G. O.) is discharged from service from 1-9-1950 F. N. his services being no longer required. He will be paid one month's pay in lieu of notice." Thereupon the plaintiff filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3083-8-6 representing the balance of his salary and allowances for the period from the date of suspension to the date of reinstatement after giving credit to the interim subsistence allowance paid to him from 21-6-1947 to 31-8-1950, and a sum of Rs. 50,715 representing his salary from 1-10-1950 to 1979 when the plaintiff would attain the age of 56, at Rs. 147 per month. This latter relief was claimed as an alternative to the main relief of reinstatement in service.

(2.) The suit was tried by Rajagopala Aiyangar J. who granted the plaintiff's first prayer and passed a decree in his favour for Rs. 3083-8-6, but dismissed the other claim for Rs. 50,715. The Government have filed the above appeal. But the plaintiff has not challenged the correctness of the finding of the learned Judge as regards his claim for damages for improper termination of his services. However, he filed a memorandum of cross objections in respect of costs which were allowed in favour of the defendant for the amount claimed, which the learn Judge had negatived. The amount involved was Rs. 2170.

(3.) The case for the Government was rested entirely on the provision contained in Art. 193(b) of the Civil Service Regulations. Article 193(a) provides that a subsistence allowance may be granted by the authority suspending him, to an officer removed from office pending enquiry into his alleged misconduct at certain rates. He may also be paid in addition any compensatory allowance, of which he was in receipt on the date of suspension to such extent and subject to such conditions as the suspending authority may direct. Clause (b) is in the following terms: