UNION OF INDIA Vs. AJODYA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is concluded by the authority in the -- 'High Commissioner for India v. I.M. Lall', AIR 1948 PC 121 (A).

(2.) THE question raised in this appeal is as to the effect of not affording reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff, an employee of the defendant-appellant, under Section 540, Sub-section (3), Government of India Act, 1935. It is necessary to give, in brief, the facts leading to the present appeal. THE respondent was appointed a Jamadar in the Sanitation Department of the Adra Station Committee in 1929 by the Bengal Nagpur Railway authorities. On the 9-1-1946, it was alleged by the appellant that the plaintiff-respondent had set up one Kalipado Bauri in place of one Dolu, another employee of the railway, to receive the letter's pay although he had left service in December 1945. On the date in question Kalipado Bauri received the pay of Dolu in the name of Dolu and made over the money to the plaintiff who had advanced loan to Dolu. An inquiry was instituted by the department on the facts alleged and during the course of the inquiry the plaintiff gave his statement. THEreupon, the inquiry report was submitted to the District Medical Officer who, on 29-1-1946, drew up a charge-sheet against the plaintiff on two counts-one was in regard to Kalipado having been set up by the plaintiff to personate for Dolu on the occasion of receiving his pay on the 9-1-1946, and the second charge was to the effect that the plaintiff had been carrying on money-lending business against the rules. On that date, namely, the 29-1-1946, the plaintiff was asked to show cause by the District Medical Officer. On 5-2-1946, the plaintiff filed a petition showing cause to the effect that the charges were false. Three days later, on the 8th of February, the District Medical Officer dismissed the plaintiff from service. THEreafter, the plaintiff made unsuccessful appeal to the General Manager against the order of the District Medical Officer. THEn he made another representation before the General Manager which also was rejected. On the 22-4-1947, the plaintiff instituted the suit against the appellant for a declaration that his dismissal was wrongful, and he prayed for a decree for arrears of his pay and for his re-in-statement. THE defence was that the charges had been proved and that the District Medical Officer had full authority to dismiss the plaintiff. THE first Court dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, it has been held by the Court below that, as a reasonable opportunity as required by Section 240 (3), Government of India Act, 1935, had not been given to the plaintiff, before he was dismissed, the order of dismissal was wrong in law. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff was given a decree for the declaration that his dismissal was wrongful and that he continued to be in service on the date of the suit. It was further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any decree for arrears of pay or damages against the Crown.

(3.) I agree.