RAMANUGRAH JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal. He brought a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Patna, on the 10th of January 1951, against the State of Bihar and Mr. L.P. Singh, Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar. He entered into Government service as a Deputy Collector and Deputy Magistrate in 1922, his date of birth being the 1st of December, 1898, and accordingly, he was due to retire on attainment of the age of superannuation (55 years) on the 1st of December 1953. On the 29th of May, 1945, the State Government framed certain charges against him and placed him under suspension and departmental proceedings and an enquiry by Mr. Lee, Member, Board of Revenue, ended by the orders passed by the State Government on the 16th of October, 1947, debarring him from any future promotions and entering in his character roll a censure for three proved charges; besides, the period of his suspension from the 29th May 1945 to the 14th September 1947, was ordered to be substantive punishment and that period was directed to be not treated as on duty or on leave. Subsequent to that, following the decision taken by the Council of Ministers on the 24th of December, 1947, he was ordered to be compulsorily retired with effect from the 12th of February, 1948, and the period from the date of his absence from Daltonganj (where he was posted as Deputy Magistrate), that is, from the 26th of November, 1947 to the 12th of February 1948, was ordered to be leave without pay (Ext. 10-w). This was communicated by the Government on the 14th January 1948 by express telegram to the Collector of Daltonganj for information of and compliance by the plaintiff, (Ext. 10-y), and the plaintiff received a copy thereof on the 16th or 17th January 1948, and he was made to make over charge of his office though under protest. In the suit, the plaintiff challenged the two orders of the Government of the 16th October 1947 and the 14th January 1948, as mala fide, illegal and ultra vires. He asked for a declaration that those two orders were of no effect, and that he was entitled to the tenure of his office till the date of superannuation and to receive his legitimate salary, and emoluments up to that date amounting to Rs. 89,115.53 NP. Alternatively he asked for a decree for Rs. 3,52,615.63 N.P. against the defendants as damages for loss of service and arrear and future pay, promotions, emoluments, pension etc. which he would have earned but for the illegal orders. He prayed for a decree for Rs. 1,00,000 for damages for harassment, mental torture, physical discomfort, expenses and loss of prestige due to illegal and mala fide proceedings and void orders passed by the Government. A schedule consisting of two parts was attached to the plaint showing the calculation of the money he claimed.

(2.) Both the defendants filed separate written statements disputing the allegation of mala fide and stating that both the impugned orders were valid. The State specifically stated in paragraphs 36 to 38 of their written statement that:

(3.) On these pleadings nine issues were framed and the parties went to trial. The plaintiff examined seven witnesses including himself but the defendants brought no witness on their side. They, however, exhibited some part of their office records and notes. The plaintiff called for the whole file from the Appointment Department connected with his suspension, punishment and compulsory retirement and it was produced, though after objection, claiming privilege, which was ultimately overruled by this Court in an ancillary proceeding arising out of the suit. Several portions of that file has been marked as different exhibits for the plaintiff but for the sake of convenience and for ends of justice and to have a complete and connected picture of the situation, we thought it necessary to mark the whole file as Ext. X by way of additional evidence.