TARA SINGH UIJAGAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who was a Sub-Divisional Officer and employed as a civilian in Defence Service filed this suit inter alia for declarations that "the order of dismissal dated 12-10-1951 is illegal and void" and that "the plaintiff continues in the service" of the Union and for arrears of salary on that basis.

(2.) The sole ground on which the plaintiff based his claim was the right which according to the plaintiff he had under Army Instructions in India No. No. 212/49 dated 25-6-1949. These instructions contain detailed procedure for departmental enquiry in connection with orders of dismissal or removal of a civilian government servant employed in defence services. These instructions inter alia provide for giving an opportunity to all employed in defence services. These instructions inter alia provide for giving an opportunity to all employees for hearing and cross-examining the evidence in support of any charge and also for submitting written-statement and evidence in defence and for a due and complete hearing. The plaintiff's contention in the plaint is that these rules of procedure in departmental enquiry were not observed in his case and therefore his dismissal is wrongful.

(3.) The short facts leading to this suit are as follows: On 15-8-1933 the plaintiff was initially employed at Bombay as a temporary clerk. In connection with this employment the plaintiff signed a printed form of agreement dated 5-1-1934. This agreement was not signed on behalf of the Government of India and remained escrow. In December 1935 the plaintiff was appointed a temporary Overseer. In March 1940 the plaintiff was appointed Overseer on permanent substantive basis and then he signed a printed form of agreement dated 21-6-1940. (Ex. 5 in this suit) This agreement is executed (on behalf of the Governor General in Council by Garrison Engineer. Wellington As appears from his service book, the plaintiff was discharging his duties at Wellington for a considerable time before March 1940. In about July 1941 the plaintiff was appointed temporary Sub-Divisional Officer and was made permanent in that post in August 1941. The parties have proceeded with this suit on the footing and basis that at all material times the agreement dated 21-6-1940 governed the parties.