SUNDER LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff was appointed as a rakshak in the Railways vide appointment letter dated 18,3.1966 issued by the Assistant Security Officer. The plaintiff was served with a charge-sheet on the basis of which an enquiry was initiated. The Inquiry Officer in his enquiry report found that the plaintiff was guilty of the charges framed against him. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Assistant Security Officer passed an order dated 12.9.1978, removing the plaintiff from the service. The plaintiff filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the appellate authority. The plaintiff thereafter, filed a suit for a declaration praying that the order of removal dated 12.9.1978 is Illegal, inoperative and void and was hit by Article 311 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India. The plaintiff also prayed that he should be deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits. The defendant in their written statement contended that the enquiry was held after following the principles of natural Justice and all the documents which was asked by the plaintiff were duly supplied and that full opportunity was given to the plaintiff to lead evidence. The defendant further submitted that the order passed by the Assistant Security Officer removing the plaintiff in service was validly passed, inasmuch as he was the appointing authority.

(2.) The trial court after framing the issues dismissed the suit with costs holding that the order passed by the Assistant Security Officer removing the plaintiff from the service was a valid order and that there was no violation of Article 311 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate court, which was partly decreed. The lower appellate court found that the Assistant Security Officer was the appointing authority and therefore, had validly passed the order of removal of service of the plaintiff. The appellate court further found that full opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiff and that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellate court, however, found that the departmental appeal of the plaintiff was not decided by the appellate authority by a reasoned order and therefore, directed the appellate authority to pass a reasoned order.