LAWS(ALL)-2008-7-32

UNION OF INDIA Vs. ABDUL QAYUM

Decided On July 02, 2008
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
ABDUL QAYUM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri K. C. Sinha, learned counsel for the defendant -appellant, Union of India and Sri A. K. Sachan advocate for the plaintiff -respondent.

(2.) THE suit was instituted claiming relief of declaration to the effect that the order of removal of the plaintiff from services w.e.f. 29.11.1971, passed by the disciplinary authority is null and void. The ground of challenge as detailed in the plaint was that the show cause notice issued to the plaintiff did not disclose the charges, without any application of mind and analysis of the enquiry report. The order of removal is also illegal, excessive and non -consideration of the plaintiffs representation in reply to the show cause notice, also proposed punishment is not commensurate to the act of delinquency.

(3.) THE suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 28.10.1974 by IIIrd Additional Munsif, Kanpur. A declaration was made that the removal order No. C.F. -1591/Con/1 dated 21.11.1972, passed by the General Manager, Parachute Factory, Kanpur imposing penalty of removal from service of the plaintiff w.e.f. 29.11.1971 is illegal and without any valid ground and the plaintiff be treated in continuous service with full benefits accruing to his post. This judgment was challenged in Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1975, Union of India v. Adbul Qayum. The appeal was remanded to the lower court for recording definite finding as to which rules have been violated in the inquiry and the order under challenge passed by the defendant is in contravention of what specific Rules. After the remand, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.5.1980. A Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1981 was instituted by the plaintiff which was allowed. The judgment and decree of the trial court was set aside and a declaration was made that the order dated 21.11.1972 passed by the defendant -appellant is void and the plaintiff should be considered as continuing in service. The suit was decreed by the lower appellate court on 30.4.1982.