GOVIND RAM SAHGAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-9-1974 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Faizabad, allowing the defendant's appeal and dismissing the plaintiff's suit for arrears of salary with interest.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for arrears of salary on the allegations that in 1949 he was appointed as Superintendent of the District Physical Culture Committee at Kanpur by means of letter dated 31-5-1949. He joined his duties at Kanpur on 1-7-1949 after completion of six weeks training. There was a great mess in financial matters when the plaintiff had joined and Government had suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 2 lakhs. Two criminal cases had been initiated against the plaintiff and his Clerk Gopal Dass Kapoor for misappropriation and falsification of accounts. The plaintiff was suspended by the Government on 18-9-1950. The plaintiff was run down in Sessions Trial No. III of 1951 and he was acquitted on 7-4-1952 Gopaldas Kapoor, however was convicted. In the other Sessions Trial No. 133 of 1951 also the plaintiff and his Clerk Gopal Dass Kapoor were convicted vide judgment dated 8-10- 1955 but on appeal the plaintiff was acquitted by the High Court vide its judgment dated 17-2-1958. The suspension order against the plaintiff-appellant was withdrawn on 23-5-1958 and he was reinstated with full pay and allowances vide the order contained in Annexure II. The plaintiff was thereafter temporarily appointed as District Organizer. Prantiya Raksha Dal, in the scale of Rs. 150-8-230-EB-12-350. The plaintiff reported for duty at Hardoi and the period during which he had remained under suspension was counted towards leave, increment and pension, Regarding fixation of his pay a separate order was issued. By letter dated 24-11-1958 it was ordered that the plaintiff would be deemed to have been appointed as District Organiser, Prantiya Raksha Dal, with effect from October, 1952 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 190/- per month and his increment was to fall due from 1-10-1958. The District Planning Officer, Hardoi, submitted two separate bills for arrears of salary of the plaintiff during the period of suspension from 19-9-1950 to 30-9-1952 and October 1952 to May, 1958 for Rs. 2386.73 and Rs. 10,768.30, respectively. While the payment of the aforesaid two bills was pending with the Government for preaudit and sanction, formal disciplinary proceedings were started against the plaintiff-appellant on account of negligence resulting in misappropriation and embezzlement of Government funds. The charge-sheet dated 13-1-1961 attached as Annexure VI to the plaint was served on the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted his explanation on 3-4- 1961 vide Annexure VII. Vide order dated 3-7-1961 it was held that the charges of negligence etc. were found proved and on these findings it was ordered that a sum of Rs. 13,155.3 P. then due to the plaintiff towards arrears of pay for the period he remained under suspension be recovered from him. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff made a representation to the Government against the said punishment but that representation was rejected by the Government on 21-7-1962 which was communicated to the plaintiff on 4-8-1962 at Faizabad. It was in these circumstances that the plaintiff filed the suit after serving a notice dated 25-4-1964 under Section 80, Civil P. C. In para 25 of the plaint the disciplinary proceedings held against him were also questioned but, however, no relief specifically had been prayed.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the State of Uttar Pradesh and it was asserted that the proceedings against the plaintiff were legal and no ouit could be filed to challenge these proceedings. It was asserted that due to the negligence and laxity on the part of the plaintiff in discharge of his duties as Superintendent, Physical Culture at Kanpur, the Government was put to a loss of Rs. 2 lakhs. It was further contended that the suit for arrears of salary was barred by limitation and the Civil Court at Faizabad had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.