RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree of Sri J. P. Mukherjee, learned Subordinate Judge 6th Court, Alipur, Dt. 24 Parganas, dated 3-2-1948.

(2.) The suit out of which this appeal has arisen, was instituted on 18-12-1945 against the respondent, the Province of Bengal. The material allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiff was appointed a Rationing Officer by the Province of Bengal on a salary of Rs. 400/-per month, that his appointment was duly notified in the Calcutta Gazette by an order of the Governor, that by a letter dated 22-1-1944 the Deputy Controller of Rationing notified to him, his appointment as Rationing Officer, that he was posted at Panihati and acted as such till 5-6-1944, when he was transferred to Garulia, that on 9-7-1944, he received a copy of an order dated 6-7-1944, passed by the Controller of Rationing, to the effect that he was discharged from service . The plaintiff submitted that the order of discharge was illegal, arbitrary and 'mala fide', that the plaintiff was not informed about the charges laid against him, that no inquiry was made and no formal proceedings were drawn up as required by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations, that the order purported to have been made on the basis of confidential inspection notes, that the plaintiff sent petitions to the Minister, Civil Supply Department and a memorial to the Governor but to no effect. The plaintiff then served a notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the order of discharge was 'ultra vires' and illegal, and that his service as a Rationing Officer still continues and that the plaintiff be reinstated in his posts as Rationing Officer with pay from the date of his discharge. In the alternative.........the plaintiff claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 6906 annas 10 pies 8 for his wrongful discharge.

(3.) The Province of Bengal filed a written statement and 'inter alia' pleaded that the plaintiff was discharged with the approval of the Government on the ground that his work was unsatisfactory, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the declarations prayed for or to any damages.