UNION OF INDIA Vs. RANDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Regular Second Appeal at the instance of Union of India challenging the decree and judgment dated 16.8.1980 of Addl. District Judge, Mandi, whereby the decree and judgment dated 1.11.1979 of Sub Judge, Sundernagar, was confirmed and the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs, Randhir Singh and Kuldip Singh, was decreed.

(2.) S/Shri Randhir Singh and Kuldip Singh had filed a suit for declaration that their termination from the service of Beas-Satluj Link Project, Sundernagar, by the appellants-defendants vide order dated 24.11.1976 passed by the Superintending Engineer, Beas-Satluj Link Construction Circle No. 2, Sundernagar, was bad and they continued to be in service and entitled to all consequential benefits thereof. They were working as Drivers in the Beas-Satluj Link Project, Sundernagar. In a case under Sec. 379 Indian Penal Code (FIR No. 137 of 1975) they were convicted for the commission of theft of diesel oil from vehicle No. RL-165 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi but were released on probation of good conduct for one year under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The case of S/Shri Randhir Singh and Kuldip Singh was that their termination order was passed on conviction alone and the disciplinary authority had not applied its mind to the effect of their release on probation and also to the quantum of punishment to be imposed keeping in view the gravity of their mis-conduct. The Union of India and others resisted the suit and took a number of preliminary objections. One of the preliminary objections was that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On merits, it was alleged that the impugned termination order was passed in accordance with law.

(3.) The trial court decreed the suit for declaration and quashed the impugned termination order. S/Sh. Randhir Single and Kuldip Singh were declared to be in continuous service of Beas Satluj Link Project and entitled to their pay and allowance etc. In appeal, the District Judge affirmed the decree. Before the District Judge, findings of the trial court on Issue No. 5 alone were challenged and the findings on other issues were not disputed as mentioned in Para 5 of his judgment.