JAGDISH PRASAD PRADHAN Vs. DISTRICT BOARD, FARRUKHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>ASTHANA, J.</DJG> This is a plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil judge of Farrukhabad, dated 2-6-1953, dismissing his suit for a declaration that the resolution of the District Board, Farrukhabad, dismissing him and certain orders passed by it were illegal, uttra vires, unjust and without jurisdiction and for recovery of a certain amount of money as salary and other allowances and increments earned by him.

(2.) JAGDISH Prasad Pradhan who is the plaintiff appellant in this Court was appointed as an Engineer in the District Board. Farrukhabad, which is defendant-respondent in this appeal, some time in March, 1943. The appointment of the appellant was made by the Administrator who was administering the affairs of the Board as it stood superseded. When a new Board was elected in 1948, the supersession ceased. It was alleged by the plaintiff-appellant that he received an order of suspension in October, 1948 and thereafter received a letter, dated 4-4-1949 from the defendant Board intimating that the Board in its meeting held on 30th March, 1949 had dismissed the plaintiff from its service. The case of the plaintiff further was that on 5th May, 1949, he filed an appeal against the order of dismissal to the Government which was allowed by the Government by its order, dated 1st March, 1950, and his dismissal and suspension orders both were set aside and the defendant Board was directed to allow him to resume charge of his duties with full pay from the date of his suspension to the date of his reinstatement it was also alleged by the plaintiff that after the passing of the said order of the Government, the defendant Board avoided reinstatement of the plaintiff on some pretext or the other and the Board referred the matter to the Government for reconsideration. It was then alleged, by the plaintiff that on the aforesaid reference by the defendant Board the Government modified its previous order passed on his appeal and by a communication, dated 15th July, 1950, directed the Board to take fresh proceedings against the plaintiff and further directed that the plaintiff would he deemed under suspension from the date on which he was originally suspended. It was alleged that in pursuance of the order of the Government the President of the Board served upon the plaintiff a fresh charge-sheet calling upon him to submit an explanation within a month and without giving him a proper opportunity to reply to the charges, the defendant Board by its resolution, dated 30th November, 1950, communicated to in the plaintiff by an order, dated 8th February, 1951 that the defendant Board had dismissed him, from its service.

(3.) IN its written statement the defendant Board while admitting that the plaintiff was appointed as an Engineer in the Board in March, 1943, and further admitting the various orders and resolutions referred to in the plaint denied all other allegations of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the suspension order was rightly passed and the resolution suspending the plaintiff as well as the second resolution dismissing the plaintiff were proper and valid resolutions and were passed after giving full opportunity to the plaintiff to show cause against the charges framed against him and there was no violation of any principle of natural justice. It was also pleaded that the original suspension order was a legal order and continued operative throughout till the plaintiff was dismissed by the resolution of the Board, dated 30th November, 1950. It was also pleaded by the defendant Board that the order of the Government, dated 1-3-1950 allowing the appeal of the plaintiff was passed on a misapprehension and when true facts were brought to the notice of the Government by the defendant Board, the Government modified its previous order and that such a modification or revision was within the powers of the Government under the law. Certain legal pleas were also raised in regard to the maintainability of the suit and questioning the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit. It was also pleaded that the Government not being made a party to the suit, it was bad for not impleading the necessary parties.