SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. PRAMOD S/O SHRAWAN BANSOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The employer-State of Maharashtra with officers working under it have challenged the concurrent orders whereby Civil Court on 12/01/1990 set aside the order of termination dated 31/10/1984 and granted reinstatement with back wages to the present respondent. Second Additional District Judge, Bhandara on 21/02/1991 has dismissed regular civil appeal No. 55 of 1990 filed by the present appellants. On 08/8/1991 the appeal has been admitted on ground No. 1 given in the appeal memo and stay of impugned orders came to be granted. However, on 22/11/1991 stay to reinstatement was vacated and stay of payment of back wages has been continued.

(2.) I have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader on this background. Learned A.G.P. points out that as per ground No. 1 raised in the memo of appeal, the suit could not have been decreed in view of bar under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. For this purpose he also invites attention to paragraph 8 of the judgment of the lower Court and argued that either labour Court or industrial Court alone were competent to take cognizance of the matter. He states that services of respondent were terminated as per stipulation in his appointment order and hence, there could not have been any relief of reinstatement granted to him.

(3.) Perusal of judgment of the trial Court clearly shows that the present respondent was appointed as per appointment order (Exh.30) and there was condition in it vide clause-II which stipulated that if his antecedents were found to be unsatisfactory, his services would be terminated with immediate effect. Vide Exh. 34, present appellants received a report dated 15/8/1984 from the office of District Superintendent of Police, Bhandara which certified that there was no criminal offence or conviction but the present respondent had taken part in morcha organized by Marathawada Vidyapeeth Namantar Kruti Samittee on 06/12/1979 and 17/9/1982. The report stated that he gave slogans against the Government. In view of this verification report, services of respondent were terminated by order dated 31/10/1984. The learned lower Court has observed that this was denied by respondent-plaintiff and the present appellants did not led any evidence to substantiate the facts mentioned in the report. The presenting officer of the trial Court has recorded that he called upon the Government Pleader to show station diary of the respective dates, but those station diaries were not produced giving reason that the diaries were already destroyed. In view of this material, the Civil Court found that there was absolutely no justification for terminating services of the present respondent and has accordingly granted him relief of reinstatement.