UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Vs. LACHHMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Union of India against the judgment and decree of Shri O.P. Aggarwal, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Patiala, by which the suit of Lachhmi Narain, Respondent was decreed and it was held that the order of termination of the Plaintiff's services, dated 31st December, 1957, was null and void and that the Plaintiff continued as Rent Collector, in the service of the Defendant and a decree for Rs. 4,468.15 Paise was also passed.

(2.) THE facts may briefly be stated thus. The Plaintiff joined service as a clerk in the scale of Rs. 50 - -4 - -70 in the Custodian Department of erstwhile Patiala State, on 1st December, 2005 BK. He was transferred as Rent Collector in the grade of Rs. 40 - -2 - -60 on 3rd February, 2006 BK. On 31st December, 1957, his services were, however, terminated by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Patiala. The Plaintiff filed the present suit in forma pauperis and the main contention was that the order of termination of his services was passed by way of punishment and since no enquiry was held against the Plaintiff and no opportunity as contemplated under Article 311 of the Constitution was granted to him, the order was illegal and unconstitutional. It was also contended that the Plaintiff was made to deposit Rs. 1,350 into the Government treasury under threat and compulsion, and since the police after investigation found that the Plaintiff was wholly innocent, he was entitled to the refund of that amount. The arrears of pay and allowances amounting to Rs. 4,985 were also claimed.

(3.) THE trial Court decided issues 1, 3 and 6 together. The finding was that the impugned order, exhibit A. 1, amounted to the removal of the Plaintiff within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and since no reasonable opportunity as envisaged therein was granted to him, the order was held to be illegal and void. Issues 1 and 3 were decided in the affirmative and in favour of the Plaintiff. On issue 6 also, the finding was in the Plaintiff's favour and it was held that he deposited Rs. 1,350 under threat, compulsion and protest and he was entitled to that amount subject to the claim being within limitation. Issue 2 was not pressed by the counsel for the Plaintiff and it was decided against the Plaintiff. On issue 4, it was found that suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,350 was barred by time under Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act. On issue 5, the finding was in favour of the Plaintiff and Tie was held entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 4,468.15 Paise on account of arrears of pay and allowances. Issues 7 and 8 were decided against the Defendant. A decree was consequently passed in favour of the Plaintiff, as mentioned above, and his claim for Rs. 1,350 was disallowed. The Plaintiff has not filed any appeal against this item and we have the appeal of the Defendant only.