KASHINATH BALKRISHNA WAGHMARE Vs. THE CANTONMENT BOARD, DEOLALI CAMP, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by a small fry of an employee who had to battle with the Cantonment Board for justice because by a stroke of pen the Board had put its foot down and had removed him from the service regardless of the question whether the law and the Constitution of India permitted the Board to pass such as order. He had to file a suit against the Board. He has satisfied the trial Court about the injustice done to him and hence the trial Court decreed his suit. The Appeal filed by the Cantonment Board, however, has been allowed by the District Court on some grounds bordering upon the technicalities and hence his suit has been dismissed by the Appellate Court. The present Second Appeal is directed against the said Appellate decree.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows:-

(3.) I will now deal with the defence of the Cantonment Board. The defence has been correctly summarised by the learned trial Judge in Pare 2 of his judgment. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff had been appointed to the said post on 7.8.1969 and that he was in the employment from 8.8.1969 to 6.6.1977. The fact that the plaintiff was served with a show-cause Notice was specifically admitted by the defendant. It was, however, stated that the action of termination of service was not taken in pursuance of the said Notice and it was contended that the order was an order of discharge simpliciter. It was denied that the order was passed without taking recourse to proper departmental proceedings or that it was passed by way of victimisation. The contention evidently was that the order of discharge was one of discharge simpliciter and hence the Board was under no obligation to follow any of the formalities relating to the enquiry. The allegation about the violation of the principles of natural justice was denied. What needs be noted here, however, is that the various facts namely that the previous show-cause notice was issued and subsequently an order of discharge was passed without assigning any reasons were not denied nor was it denied that no departmental proceedings as such were taken for the purpose of passing the order. In other words, the defendant-Board made no bones of the fact that the plaintiff's services were done away with unceremoniously by recourse to the device of discharge simpliciter and as defence to such action the plea raised was that for a discharge simpliciter there arose no necessity of compliance with the rules relating to any departmental enquiry.