LAXMI SHANKER MISRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal No. 2776 of 1979, Second Appeal No. 3105 of 1978 and Writ Petition no, 10045 of 1979 are based on simitar or connected facts ami raise similar questions of law. They were directed to be connected and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts, so far as they are relevant for the disposal of these cases, are that the Plaintiff-Appellant/Petitioner was working as a Grinder 'B' in. Central Tools Room Section, Ordnance Factory, Kanpur, prior to the institution of the suit No. 462 of 1974. His status was that of a quasi permanent employee He was served with charge sheet No. 1210/Camp/LB/43 dated 10-1-1967 and No. 1210/Camp/Vig./18 dated 31-1-1969. An inquiry was conducted in respect of the first charge sheet while the second charge sheet was dropped. A third charge sheet was served on the Plaintiff Appellant on 11-2-1972, charging him with gross misconduct; it was alleged that he over stayed after night duty on 18-2-1972 to instigate workers of day shift to go on strike. As a result of this inquiry, his increments were stopped. The Appellant was then served with a transfer order dated 26-2-1972 transferring him to the Training Section. He made a representation against this order inter alia, on the ground that it would mean a loss of Rs. 250/- per month by way of production bonus. On getting no relief, he filed a suit No. 612 of 1973 in the Court of Munsif City, Kanpur for a declaration that his transfer order was illegal, being by way of punishment, with the allegations that he will get Rs. 250/- per months less emoluments as a result of this transfer and he will not be able to get promotion.

(3.) The suit was contested by the Respondent Union of India. The allegations made by the Plaintiff-Appellant were denied and it was alleged that the transfer was made in normal course to suit that requirements of various sections and it was not by way of punishment. it was further alleged that the Plaintiff-Appellant was being paid emoluments admissible to him and the order in question was not illegal on any other ground.