MUNNI LAL SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review application under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. has been filed by the appellant/applicant in Second Appeal No. 2420 of 1976, decided by this Court on 24.3.1998 for review of the order dated 24.3.1998 and to allow the appeal after setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower court dated 1.6.8.1976.

(2.) The applicant (hereinafter called the plaintiff) filed original suit No. 20 of 1967 in the Court of Munsif, Ghazipur for declaration that he had been in service of the respondent/ opposite party [hereinafter called the defendant) on the post of Postal Clerk till the date of his retirement. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was initially appointed by the Inspector of Post Office, Varanasi as Mail Peon in the year 1937. He was confirmed on the said post in the year 1946. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Postal Clerk in the year 1952 and worked in that capacity on different places till 1954. Since he was an active worker of the Union of the department, he incurred displeasure of Inspector of Post Offices who lodged a police report against him for the offence punishable under Sections 467 and 409, I.P.C. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the plaintiff and he was charge-sheeted on 13.9.1960. He was also tried by the criminal court for the offences punishable under Sections 467 and 409, I.P.C. However, he was convicted by the trial court, but was acquitted in appeal. The plaintiff was not afforded proper opportunity of being heard in the departmental enquiry and ultimately in the departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 18.1.1963. He preferred departmental appeal and the appellate authority set aside the dismissal of the plaintiff but passed order of his reversion to the post of Mail Peon for a period of 5 years, vide order dated 19.1.1964. The plaintiff, however, retired from service in the month of July, 1968.

(3.) The Union of India contested the suit mainly on the ground that no valid and proper notice under Section 80, C.P.C. was served. Full opportunity of hearing was afforded to the plaintiff during departmental enquiry and he also submitted representation to substantiate his defence.