SHIVCHARAN LAL Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4-5-95 passed by IIIrd ADJ Gwalior affirming the judgment and decree of Trial Court.

(2.) THE factual matrix leading to the filing of this appeal indicate that plaintiff was appointed on the post of patwari in Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. His services were terminated on 6-8-80. He challenged the order of termination. As a matter of fact civil suit was amended so as to incorporate the relief of challenge to the dismissal from service. Initially the order was passed retiring the petitioner from service on completion of 58 years of age. This order was issued on 18-1-80. His retirement was ordered w. e. f. 1-11-80 but before the date of his retirement could be attained by the plaintiff, he was suspended and ultimately on 31-1-80 instead of retirement, dismissal order was handed-over to him. The plaintiff's allegation was that he was served with the show-cause notice based on inquiry report. In order to submit a representation he required certain documents and also copy of inquiry report. For that purpose an application was moved which was not attended to and documents were not supplied to him. Hence there was serious prejudice caused to the plaintiff/appellant. It is further submitted that there was violation of the principle's of natural justice. Hence the order of dismissal deserves to be set aside. The Municipal Corporation, Gwalior though denied the original pleading made in the plaint but did not file any reply to the amended plaint by which the plea of illegal dismissal was incorporated. However, pursuant to the amendment additional issues 8-A and 8-B were framed by the Trial Court as to validity of dismissal.

(3.) THE Trial Court in the initial judgment and decree did not consider any evidence and outrightly recorded the finding in two line that burden of proof as to illegality of dismissal was on plaintiff which he has failed to discharge. The first appeal was filed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court, which was decided again by Trial Court on 25-3-92. Again the suit of the plaintiff met with the same fate.