ZILLA PARISHAD SOLAPUR Vs. ANANADRAO CHANDRAM HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While admitting the Second Appeal on 16-12-1996, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) The brief facts leading to this Second Appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff was issued the show cause notice dated 17-2-1987 (Exh.52) by the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Solapur proposing to proceed to take disciplinary action under Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad, District Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 against the plaintiff (for short "the D. & A. Rules"). The plaintiff was called upon to show cause whey he should not be removed from service on account of his continuous absence from 20/8/1986. Subsequently by the order dated 8-4-1987 (Exh.53) the plaintiff came to be dismissed from service on account of his unauthorised absence from 7-6-1979 to 18-6-1986 continuously. The plaintiff submitted an application dated 7-8-1987 (Exh.51) contending that the action of dismissal from service with effect from 7-6-1979 was illegal and in any case he should be allowed to retire voluntarily taking into consideration his service of 38 years. The Zilla Parishad vide its order dated 27-8-1987 rejected the application for voluntary retirement on the ground that the plaintiff was already dismissed from service as per the order dated 8-4-1987. On 14-7-1988 the plaintiff submitted a representation to the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad which was received by it on 19-7-1988 and prayed for the monetary benefits available on retirement. As there was no response from the Zilla Parishad the plaintiff sent the notice dated 13-9-1988 through his Advocate and challenged the action of dismissal. He approached the Civil Court and filed Regular Civil Suit No.666 of 1990 and prayed for the following reliefs:-

(3.) The defendants filed Civil Appeal No.444 of 1993 and the same came to be dismissed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge at Solapur on 30-6-1995. The lower Appellate Court held that the findings recorded by the trial Court on the issue of voluntary retirement were unsustainable as the plaintiff had not prayed for such a relief, but proceeded to confirm the decree passed by the trial Court.