BAJIRAO TUKARAM MANAV Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 284 of 1969 instituted by him in the Court of Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Pune. Respondents were the original defendants. Respondent No. 1 is described as "Administrative Officer (Education Officer) Municipal School Board, Pune Municipal Corporation Pune", and respondent No. 2 has been described as "The Pune Municipal Corporation by its Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune".

(2.) The appellant-plaintiff was a trained primary teacher selected by the Competent Authorities. He was in the service of the Pune Municipal School Board. It was alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint that on the basis of the reports made by respondent No. 1 an inquiry held against him on certain complaints which terminated in his dismissal order, was vitiated for want of following proper procedure and following rules of Bombay Civil Services Rules. Plaintiff was dismissed from the service by a letter dated 11/12 September, 1968 informing him that from 16th September, 1968 his services stand terminated. After giving notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff has challenged this dismissal order in a suit and prayed for declaration that order of his dismissal from service is illegal, wrongful and it is not binding on him.

(3.) Both the defendants filed their written statement denying that the suit is not maintainable in law as defendant No. 1 is not sued as a proper party to suit and it was also contended that defendant No. 2 who is Municipal Corporation is not liable to be sued at all for want of a proper notice. It was further contended in the defence that there is no proper person sued in due capacity to answer the claim. The plea that was taken in the defence was that a notice under section 62 of the Bombay Primary Education Act, 1947 was also not given by the plaintiff before filing of the suit. The plaintiff has only given notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under section 487 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. However, these notices are irrelevant, according to the defendants and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for want of proper notice. The defendants have stated that the departmental enquiry was properly conducted and the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief and on this count the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed.