GENDA LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Sec. 100, C.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4-8-78 passed by I Additional Civil Judge, Agra dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 29-11-77 decreeing the suit by the Munsif, Agra, (Court No. 10) in Suit No. 350 of 1975. D/d. 29.11.1977. Genda Lal Vs. Union of India.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration that his services have been wrongfully terminated and that he continuous in service as before together with the recovery of arrears of salary and pendency of the salary. The appellant had alleged that he was appointed as a painter in the office of the Commanding Officer No. 31, Wing Air Force Station, Agra on 20-5-71 and was receiving Rs. 342.97 per month as emoluments. He was faithfully and intelligently performing his services but on account of the annoyance of Group Captain Sri K. P. Mishra who then was a Commander, for his (Appellant's) refusal to do his house work. A warning was issued on 20-7-73 to which the appellant protested. Infact the appellant was required to comply with the orders of Sec. Commander regarding extra work. On his failure to do so he was charge-sheeted by the Senior Administrative Officer Commanding by letter dated 22-2-74 on the charge of corruption, misconduct and negligence of duties. The plaintiff'-appellant alleged that the said charge-sheet was false and a correct reply to the charge-sheet was submitted. The charges as enjoined in the charge-sheet were withdraw n on 11-11-74 by the Group Commanding Officer but his services were terminated on 31-3-75 by one month's notice on the ground that his services were not required. The appellant thus alleged that the impugned order of termination is illegal, ultra vires, mala fide and is not binding.

(3.) The respondent contested the suit except that it was admitted that the appellant was appointed w.e.f. 15-4-71. Other allegations of the plaint were denied. It was contended by the respondent that the termination order has been rightly passed and is legal and valid.