DES RAJ Vs. DOMINION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit was decreed by the trial Court but dismissed by the Court of first appeal. The appeal originally came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, Bhandari, j., who has referred it to a Division Bench because of the difficulty of the point involved. The plaintiff Des Raj entered the service of the North Western Railway as a Signaller in December 1920 but his services were dispensed with under a scheme of retrenchment in July 1923. He was, however, re-employed again as a signaller under the orders of the Superintendent of Telegraphs at Lahore in June 1924. He rose to the rank of Assistant Station Master Ordinary Grade in 1927, and in January 1942 was officiating as Assistant Station Master First Grade, but in October 1942 he reverted to his substantive appointment as Assistant Station Master Ordinary Grade. On the 9th of October 1942 he was placed under suspension in consequence of certain alleged irregularities committed by him while working as Train Despatcher at Amritsar. Charges were framed against him and his explanation was submitted and on the 3rd of November 1942 he received a communication from the Divisional Personnel Officer as follows:

(2.) It seems that when the second appeal came before this Court the matter was considered from a rather different standpoint, namely whether in view of the fact that the contract of service under which the plaintiff was employed by the Railway provided for the termination of his service by one month's notice by either party, his discharge with one month's pay in lieu of notice could be regarded as dismissal within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 240 of the Government of India Act Sub-section (1) of which reads:

(3.) The learned Single Judge before whom the appeal was first argued found it difficult in the absence of any authority to decide the question whether a person who has entered into a contractual relationship with Government, and whose terms of agreement provided that his services may be terminated at any time with a particular notice being given, and who is served with the prescribed notice and required to relinquish his appointment, can be said to have been dismissed within the meaning of the expression in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 240.