QAMARUDDIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff arises in die following circumstances. The plaintiff was appointed in the Railway Security Force, which was later on converted into Railway Protection Force. He claim ed to be holding the post of 'bhisti' in the Railway Security Force at the material time. Disciplinary proceedings were taken against him and he was served with a charge-sheet, which ultimately resulted into his dismissal from his service. He preferred an appeal against that order which was also rejected. Then he gave a notice dated 4th Dec., 1968, through Sri Gopal Krishna Srivastava, Advocate, to the General Manager, N. E. Rail-way, Gorakhpur. Thereafter he filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal.

(2.) In the suit he claimed a decree for declaration that the order of "removal" from service dated 28/30th August, 1968, which Was served on him on 3rd Sept., 1968, was illegal, void and ultra vires and against Arti cle 311 of the Constitution of India and that he should be deemed to be continuing in service with all wages and emoluments. He also claimed a decree for a sum of Rupees 2,723.57 p. towards his salary, the details of which were given in the plaint.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the Union of India on a variety of grounds. In para 19 of the written statement, it was pleaded by the Union of India that the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was defective and illegal. On merits as well the suit was contested. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence adduced held that the order dated 28th Aug., 1968, terminating the plaintiff's services was valid. It was also held that the notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was invalid. On these findings the trial Court dismissed the suit. The matter was carried in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge concurred with the trial Court that the notice given by the plaintiff under Section 80, C. P. C. was illegal and invalid. However, on merits of the case, the appellate Court below recorded a contrary finding. The appeal was, however, dismissed because the notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was held to be defective and invalid. The plaintiff has come up to this Court on second appeal.