KAPOOR SINGH HARNAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed by the two courts below. It arises out of the decree dated 31-3-1956 passed by Shri D.M. Aney, Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, in Civil Appeal No. 6-A of 1956, arising out of the decree dated 1-11-1954 passed by Shri L.S. Khare, First Civil Judge Class II, Jabalpur, in Civil Suit No. 204-A of 1953.

(2.) The appellant was a supervisor in the Military Dairy, Jabalpur. Upon a report from the security staff attached to the Military Sub-area, a Court of inquiry consisting of 3 persons was constituted in order to inquire into the malpractices, said to have been prevalent in the military dairy farm. The appellant held the post in the civilian section of the Defence Department. The court of inquiry submitted a report, in pursuance of which, a charge sheet, dated 2-41952 was framed against the appellant. One, Major Sarwansingh was directed by the order dated 30-10-1952 to hold an oral enquiry into the charges against the appellant. He submitted his final certificate about the conclusion of the inquiry on 6-111952. He, however, did not record any findings of his own, but submitted the papers of the appellant's case to the authority, who was competent to take disciplinary action against the appellant. A show cause notice dated 21-3-1953 was issued by the competent authority, in reply to which the appellant furnished his explanation. Finally the appellant was dismissed from service by order dated 14-8-1953. The dismissal order has not been produced by either of the parties. But the fact of dismissal was not disputed during arguments. An intimation of the fact of dismissal was however communicated to the appellant by the Manager of the Military Dairy Farm.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the findings of the Court of inquiry; but, confined his case to a contravention of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. In the alternative it was urged that even if Article 311 of the Consititution were held inapplicable to the appellant, Service rules governing the appellant, embodying the principles of Article 311, had been violated and, therefore, the appellant's dismissal was wrongful and illegal, as being in contravention of the Service Rules, as also opposed to the principles of natural justice.