RADHA KISHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ex. Ahlmad, Radha Kishan, has filed this Regular Second Appeal to impugn the order of his removal, up-held by the Courts. This order of removal was passed as he had lost one judicial file while working in the Session Division Karnal in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat.

(2.) One civil suit No. 542 of 1968 titled Mam Raj v. Ram Singh was decided by Sh. Hari Ram, Sub Judge Ist Class, Panipat on 20.11.1969. Aggrieved party filed an appeal against the same and the record of the case was summoned by the Additional District Judge, Karnal. Thereafter, the record of civil suit was despatched to the Court of Sh. S.N. Chadha on 6.3.1971 under a registered parcel, as per the dak register pertaining to the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal. When the record of civil suit was requisitioned by the High Court to decide the R.S.A filed in this case, the same was not found available in the record room at Karnal or in the Court of Sh. S.N. Chadha at Panipat. Preliminary enquiry in this regard was conducted and the appellant was charge sheeted on 10.6.1977. Appellant denied the receipt of file of the civil suit. The District Judge did not feel satisfied with the explanation and appointed Chief Judicial Magistrate as an Enquiry Officer to hold the departmental enquiry under Punishment and Appeal Rules. After putting in appearance before the Enquiry Officer alongwith counsel, the appellant thereafter did not appear. The statements of four witnesses were recorded and enquiry report was submitted. Thereafter, the appellant was served a show cause notice, to which again he did not file any reply and so he was dismissed from service. The service appeal filed by him before the High Court was also dismissed. Appellant had then filed the present civil suit.

(3.) The respondent-defendant resisted the civil suit and pleaded that the impugned order was valid, legal and passed in accordance with law after following due procedure. It is pointed out that the appellant refused to take part in the enquiry and also failed to furnish any reply to the show cause notice. Even the prayer for extension of time was granted but still he did not furnish any explanation despite repeated adjournments. Accordingly, it was prayed that the suit filed be dismissed.