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. and 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 relief s:-

(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.