STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal against whom suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial Court but was decreed in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that order dated 22.11.1974 of the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Karnal, by which his services were terminated and the subsequent order dated 2.2.1976 of the Secretary to the Haryana Government in the Transport Department confirming that order were illegal, ultra vires, null and void. The main grievance of the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint was that proper opportunity was not given by the enquiry officer. The suit was contested by the State of Haryana, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff was employed on temporary basis. He was charge-sheeted and a regular enquiry was held during which he was provided full opportunity. The plaintiff also produced the defence. He was also served with the second show cause notice and therefore, the order terminating his services was perfectly valid and legal. The trial Court found that the order dated 22.11.1974 terminating the services of the plaintiff was valid and legal. The plaintiff has failed to prove the plea taken by him in the plaint. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that the charge of embezzlement or misappropriation of money was not at all proved either by the allegations on their face made by the Inspector or by the evidence led against the plaintiff. According to the lower appellate Court the Punishing Authority as well as Inquiry Officer was wrong in coming to that conclusion in the absence of any evidence to prove that point. Consequently, the order terminating the services of the plaintiff was held to be illegal. Thus the plaintiff's suit for declaration was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same the State of Haryana has filed the second appeal in this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Additional District Judge has made out an absolutely new case for the plaintiff which he never pleaded in the plaint. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the Civil Court could not interfere in the findings of the Inquiry Officer as it was not sitting in appeal over the said findings. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the approach of the lower appellate Court being wrong and illegal, the finding arrived at was vitiated. In support of his contention reference was made to the Supreme Court judgment in R.C. Sharma v. Union of India, 1976 2 SLR 265.