UNION OF INDIA Vs. RATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India as the owner of the Northern Railway has come up in revision against an appellate order holding that the courts at Kanpur had jurisdiction, to try the suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party. THE appellate court had reversed the order of the learned Munsif, Kanpur, on the question of jurisdiction. THE trial court had held that the courts at Kanpur had no jurisdiction to try the suit. THE plaintiff-opposite party filed suit No. 308 of 1973 against the Union of India on the allegation that he joined railway service in January, 1948 as a Turner in the Loco Running Shed, East Indian Railway, Kanpur. In 1965, the plaintiff was posted at Rewari Loco Running Shed in district Gurgaon. He took two days casual leave for September 24 and 25, 1965 but unfortunately could not return to duty after the expiry of the leave. He reported for duty more than four years later, namely, on December 4, 1969. He was sent for medical examination and was declared fit for duty. THE defendants, however, did not permit the plaintiff to resume his duty. THEy launched disciplinary proceedings against him under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules contained in Chapter XVII of the Indian Railways Establishment Code. In paragraph 14 of the plaint, it has been alleged that the plaintiff was served with a show cause notice issued by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Bikaner, holding the plaintiff guilty of the charges and asking him to make representation in respect of the proposed penalty of removal from service. A copy of the enquiry report was enclosed with the show cause notice. Ultimately he was informed that by an order dated January 5, 1970 the plaintiff was removed from service. THE plaintiff challenged the order of removal from service on a variety of grounds mentioned in paragraph 17 of the plaint. THEse grounds relate to various irregularities and illegalities on account of which the order was violative of Article 311(1)" and the Statutory Ruks. THE plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the order of removal be declared illegal and ultra vires and that it be declared that the plaintiff continued to remain in service. One of the pleas taken in defence was that the courts at Kanpur had no jurisdiction to try the suit. THE trial court held that the principal grievance of the plaintiff was violation of Statutory Rules in conducting the enquiry- against him. THE enquiry was held at Rewari beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Kanpur. THE courts at Kanpur hence had no jurisdiction to try the suit. THE plaintiff went up in appeal. THE lower appellate court held that according to the plaint allegations which alone were relevant on the question of jurisdiction, it was clear that the contract of service was completed at Kanpur. Part of the cause of action hence arose at Kanpur. It was held that the suit was triable by the courts at Kanpur. THE view that service under the State is a matter of contract is not tenable. In Roshanlal Tandon v. Union of India and another(A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1889) it was held: "It is true that the origin of Government service is contractual. THEre is an officer and acceptance in every case. But once appointed to his post or office the Government servant acquires a status and his rights and obligations are not longer determined] by consent of both parties, but by statute or statutory rules which may be framed altered unilaterally by the Government. In ether words, the legal position of a Government servant is more one of status than of contract. THE hall-mark of status is the attachment to a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by the public law and not by mere agreement of the parties. THE emolument of the Government servant and his terms of service are governed by statute or statutory rules, which may be unilaterally altered by the Government without the consent of the employee. It is true that Article 311 imposes constitutional restorations upon the power of removal granted to the President and the Governor under Article 310. But it is obvious that the relationship between the Government and its servant is not like an ordinary contract of service between a master and servant. THE legal relationship is something entirely different, something in the nature of status." It was held that a Government servant has no vested contractual rights in regard to the conditions and terms of his service. In the present case, the substance of the plaintiff's grievance was that he was denied the rights given to him by Article 311 of the Constitution and the Statutory rules. He was thus complaining not of breach of contract but violation of the conditions of service granted to him by the law of the land. THE plaint allegations revealed that there was no dispute that the plaintiff was at one time in the service of the Northern Railway. THE plaintiff alleges that the removal order dated January 5, 1970 was passed by the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway, Bikaner and that this order was communicated to him by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Bikaner. THE plaint discloses that this order was passed as a result of the disciplinary proceedings, held by the Divisional Personal Officer. On the plaint allegations, therefore, there was no possible reason to hold that the factum that the plaintiff entered into railway service and was for the first time posted at Kanpur was a fact which was likely to be disputed. THE plaint alleged that at the time when the disciplinary proceedings were taken he had been posted at Rewari district Gurgaon. His principal grievance was against the validity of the disciplinary proceedings held by the Railway Department at Rewari or Bikaner. In the context of these facts appearing from a reading of the plaint it is clear that all relevant and material parts of the cause of action for the suit were in respect of the disciplinary proceedings. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction on courts to try suits where the cause of action in whole or in part accrues within their territorial jurisdiction. THE term 'the cause of action in whole or in part' means and refers to those facts which, if disputed or traversed by the defendant or not proved or established by the plaintiff by evidence, will immediately entitle the defendant to the dismissal of the suit. THE phrase 'part of the cause of action' does not encompass those facts which may be necessary for the plaintiff to establish the historical narrative or background of his story. In Zila. Parishad (District Board) v. Shanti Devi and another (A.I.R. 1965 Alld. 590.) a Full Bench of this Court speaking through Desai, C. J., observed: "A suit, however, does not lie merely because a cause of action has accrued, it does not lie if other conditions for its institution are not fulfilled or if the cause of action has been discharged by satisfaction or by lapse of time or by a valid compromise. Hence a plaint must state not only the cause of action but also other circumstances such as that the Court has jurisdiction and that the cause of action has not been dead or discharged. THEse circumstances which are stated in the plaint do not become part of the cause of action on account of their being stated along with it in the plaint. THE statement of the circumstances is the requirement of a plaint and not of a cause of action. Form Nos. 1 to 13 of Appendix A of the Code of Civil Procedure show that a plaintiff suing for money must plead non-payment in the plaint but it does not follow that the non-payment is a part of the cause of action. THE non-payment is a part of the cause of action only in a suit for damages for the non-payment, that is in a suit for a breach of the contract." On the allegations in the plaint in the present case, it is clear that the fact that the plaintiff entered into railway service and was at first posted at Kanpur was not part of the cause of action for the relief claimed in a suit, that the order of removal from service be set aside. It was one of the facts necessary to narrate the historical back ground. THE material parts of the cause of action arose at Rewari or Bikaner where the enquiry was held, where disciplinary proceedings were conducted and concluded. That place being outside the territorial jurisdiction of the courts at Kanpur, the suit was not maintainable in the Kanpur courts. THE revision succeeds and is allowed. THE order of the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court restored. THE parties may, however, bear their own costs.