UNION OF INDIA Vs. TEJ NARAIN DAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts which give rise to this second appeal are that the plaintiff entered the service of the Gwalior State as the Traffic Inspector of the Gwalior Light Railway on 25 -4 -1933, that while he was serving the Railway as the P.A. to the Manager of the Scindia State Railway (The Gwalior Light Railway subsequently came to be known later on as Scindia State Railway), he was dismissed on 2 -9 -49 by an order of the Minister -in -charge of the Port -folio of Communication, The plaintiff challenged the order of dismissal on two grounds; (i) that he was dismissed without being given an opportunity to explain the charges against him; (ii) that In denying him the opportunity to show cause, not only were the principles of natural justice violated, but the act was also against the then prevailing law in the State; (iii) that the plaintiff being a Gazetted Officer, his case ought to have been referred to the Public Service Commission before his being dismissed. On 1 -4 -50, the Scindia State Railway was transferred to the Central Government, and, in consequence the suit is filed against the Union of India as represented by the Manager, Central Railways, in which the Scindia State Railway was merged. The written statement submitted on behalf of the Union stated that the plaintiff before his dismissal was given an opportunity to explain the charges against him, that it was after a full enquiry that the plaintiff was dismissed. It was also stated that there was no law in the former Gwalior State according to which the plaintiff was entitled to be accorded such an opportunity. It was also contended that it was not necessary to refer the matter to the Public Service Commission before the dismissal of the plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to explain the charges against him and that though the law existed according to which such an opportunity was to be given to a servant before his dismissal, yet it was not followed. The trial Court did not accept the contention of the plaintiff, that his case should have been referred to Public Service Commission, because it held that he was not a Gazetted Officer. On appeal, the District Judge, Gwalior, upheld the decision of the trial Court. Now this is defendant's second appeal.

(2.) BEFORE considering the point raised in this appeal, I would first of all like to say that although the Central Railway had stated in its written statement that before dismissing the plaintiff a charge -sheet was given to him, and, he was called upon to submit his reply, yet curiously enough before the first appellate Court, the counsel of the Railway conceded that before the plaintiff's dismissal, no charge -sheet was given to the plaintiff, nor was his explanation called.

(3.) I propose to deal with these points in the order in which they have been stated.