RAJ KUMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE JULLUNDUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJ Kumar appellant (hereinafter called the plaintiff) was dismissed from municipal service from the post of a Building Inspector by a resolution of the Municipal Committee, jullundur (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), dated October 17, 1963, on the basis of the report of an inquiry committee appointed by the defendant to inquire into the charges of corruption, etc. His appeal against the order of dismissal having been rejected by the commissioner, Jullundur Division, he filed the civil suit from which this appeal has ultimately arisen, on January 22, 1966, claiming a declaration to the effect that the order of his dismissal from service, dated October 17, 1963, passed by the defendant was wrong, illegal, unconstitutional, without jurisdiction, void, capricious, arbitrary, mala fide and against natural justice, and that the plaintiff was still a regular employee of the defendant entitled to that legal status and claiming such other relief as the Court may deem proper or find him to be entitled to. While contesting the plaintiff's suit, the defendant took up in its written statement a preliminary objection to the effect that the suit in the form in which it had been filed was not legally maintainable and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The above mentioned preliminary objection gave rise to the first issue framed in the case to the effect: "whether the suit is not maintainable?"-

(2.) BY his judgment, dated July 14, 1967, Shri Bakhshish Singh, Subordinate Judge, Third Class, Jullundur, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on merits. His finding on issue No. 1 was couched in the following language:

(3.) THE defendant's second appeal (R. S. A. 595 of 1968) was allowed by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court (Sodhi, J.), dated December 9, 1969. After discussing the merits of the Controversy and after recording a finding in favour of the defendant thereon, the learned Judge proceeded to observe as below: "the last contention of Mr. Sachar is that the first appellate court has erred in law in directing reinstatement of the plaintiff respondent, even if it could be held that the enquiry proceedings were in any way irregular and led to his wrongful dismissal. The submission is that the only remedy was by way of a suit for damages. He has, in this connection, cited a number of authorities and invited my attention to the latest judgment of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Executive Committee of U. P. State Warehousing Corpn. Ltd. v. Chandra Karan Tyagi (1970 20 FLR. 17=1968-70 7 SCLJ. 272=1970 Lab. IC 1044 SC), in which it has been held that when there is no violation of any statute or statutory rules, nor has the plaintiff acquired any statutory status, the rule of law is that a contract of personal service cannot be enforced, and that there are only the following three well-recognised exceptions to this rule: (1) a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Article 311; (2) reinstatement of a dismissed worker can be directed under industrial Law by Labour or Industrial Tribunals; and (3) a declaration resulting in the reinstatement of an employee can also be granted where a statutory body has acted in breach of a mandatory obligation, imposed by statute. Even if there was some irregularity in the enquiry proceedings, which resulted in the wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff-respondent, he could not be imposed upon the employers against their will, unless his case fell under any of the aforesaid three exceptions. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has not been able to convince me that the case of the plaintiff is covered by any of the said exceptions, and there has been a breach of any statutory rule. The present appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge was filed on a certificate granted under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. As the hearing of this appeal before the Division bench (Pandit and Gopal Singh, JJ.), one of the questions agitated was whether the plaintiff could claim a declaration regarding his status as an employee of the Municipal Committee even if his dismissal was held to be wrongful on the ground that proper procedure was not followed while passing the order of his dismissal; or, in those circumstances, the plaintiff could only be left to claim damages. After referring to various earlier judgments of this Court, the learned judges framed the following question of law and directed that the papers of this appeal may be placed before the learned Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench for answering the same: