STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KRISHAN MURARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals (Regular First Appeal Nos. 120 and 134 of 1963 are being disposed of together because they raise common question of law and fact and indeed arguments have only been addressed in Regular First Appeal No. 134 of 1963, it being conceded that Regular First Appeal No. 120 of 1963 would stand or fall with this appeal.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the controversy which is a subject-matter of these two appeals are that the plaintiff Krishan Murari Lal Sehgal, who is respondent in this Court in both these appeals, joined Government service in Patiala State in the year 1948. On the formation of the new State of Punjab with the merger of the erstwhile Pepsu and Punjab States, the plaintiff was integrated in the service of the new State as permanent Assistant in the grade of Rs. 150-10-300 and was actually getting Rs. 170/- per mensum on 21st October, 1959, the date of his dismissal, in the office of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. He instituted a suit in March, 1962 challenging his dismissal and seeking a declaration that the dismissal order dated 21st October, 1959 is illegal, void, inoperative and unconstitutional and that the plaintiff continues to be in service of the Punjab State. In this suit, he also claimed increment due to him on 5th July, 1959. This suit was decreed on 15th January, 1963. In June, 1962, the plaintiff instituted a suit as a pauper claiming a decree for about Rs. 8,689/- as arrears of his salary and allowances and also a further decree for Rs. 278/12/- per mensum from 5th June, 1962 upto 4th July, 1962 and Rs. 290/- per mensum from 5th July, 1962 upto the date of decree. This suit was decreed by the Court below on 15th January, 1963 and R.F.A. No. 120 of 1963 is directed against this decree. In support of both the appeals Shri J.S. Wasu has appeared in this Court.

(3.) Reverting to R.F.A. No. 134 of 1963, the plaintiff has averred in his plaint that due to serious illness of his mother, he had proceeded on casual leave for two days on 8th July, 1958 which was duly sanctioned by the competent authority. Due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not attend to his duties on account of illness of his mother, wife and daughter and sought extension of leave which was duly sanctioned. Meanwhile, the plaintiff himself became seriously ill and prayed for leave from 1st November, 1958 to 28th February, 1959 on the basis of a medical certificate granted by Dr. Inder Singh Sodhi, M.B.B.S., Retited Civil Surgeon, Pepsu, Patiala. Under the conditions of his service framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, the plaintiff was entitled as a matter of right to leave on medical grounds on the basis of the said certificate, but the authorities concerned arbitrarily, capriciously and illegally declined to sanction leave. The plaintiff continued to be seriously ill, with the result that it was impossible for him to join his duties and was thus compelled to remain away from his office. As soon as the plaintiff was fit to join his duties on 2nd March, 1959 he did so at Simla and was permitted to resume his duties by the authorities concerned on furnishing a certificate of fitness granted by the aforesaid retired Civil Surgeon. The plaintiff by a registered letter dated 23rd January, 1959 and a reminder dated 26th/27th January, 1959 requested the Establishment Officer of the Financial Commissioner's Office (Revenue) Punjab, Chandigarh, to get him examined by a Civil Surgeon of the Punjab State in accordance with the rules, but this request was not granted. On 14th February, 1959, he repeated this request but to no avail. The plaintiff, so continues the averments in the plaint, had a legal right to remain away from his duties on medical grounds and this absence could not constitute 'misbehaviour' gross indiscipline and insubordination" under the statutory Service Conduct Rules or under any other rules or directions issued by the Government. On 1st September, 1956, the plaintiff claims to have been confirmed as an Assistant in the grade of Rs. 150-10-300 in the Pepsu Civil Secretary Service by His highness the Rajpramukh of Pepsu. It is accordingly His Highness the Rajpramukh of Pepsu who was the competent appointing authority of the plaintiff and that thus the Rajpramukh of Pepsu could dismiss the plaintiff from his service. The order of dismissal passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) is thus also described to be violative of Article 311(1) of the Constitution. On 31st October, 1956, a day prior to the formation of the new State of Punjab, the plaintiff was allocated to the office of the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab. Under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the plaintiff was guaranteed and entitle to the same terms and conditions of service as he enjoyed prior to the formation of the New State, with the result that he could not be dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab who was an authority subordinate to the Governor of Punjab. Enquiry by Shri G.R. Vij, I.A.S. Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Development Department, Chandigarh, on the basis of which the plaintiff was dismissed has also been described to be contrary to law because the appointment of Enquiry Officer could only be made by the Governor. Three witnesses, Dr. Inder Singh Sodhi. Dr. Mrs. Satwant Kaur and Shri Durga Dass, Senior Superintendent (Results), Punjab University, Chandigarh, have been mentioned to be the witnesses who were not summoned by the Enquiry Officer on behalf of the plaintiff and this failure is stated to be violative of the principles of natural justice and fairplay. The Enquiry Officer has found the plaintiff guilty of various charges without any evidence whatsoever. It is mainly on these grounds that the plaintiff claimed the declaration in the trial Court.