LAWS(PAT)-1985-7-11

EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF KHAGAUL Vs. DAMODAR PRASAD

Decided On July 05, 1985
Executive Officer Of Khagaul Appellant
V/S
DAMODAR PRASAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the Executive officer of Khagaul Municipality, in which the Commissioners of the said Municipality through the Chairman of the Municipality have been made respondent No. 2 and the erstwhile Executive Officer has been made the third respondent, is directed against a judgment of reversal

(2.) The plaintiff respondent was employed as Sanitary Inspector cum -Overseer in the Municipality. He was a permanent incumbent in the said post when the Municipality was superseded by the State Government and a Special Officer was appointed. There have been some differences, which are narrated in the plaint and mentioned in detail in the judgment of the court of appeal below between the plaintiff and the said Special Officer resulting in the order passed by him on 20 -5 -1959 removing the plaintiff from service. The plaintiff was communicated of his removal by order passed on 30 -5 -1959 on 1 -6 -1959. The super session of the Municipality had been recalled in the mean while. On 30 -5 -1959 the Special Officer handed over charge of his office to the Municipal Commissioner. The plaintiff was on leave from 1 -5 -1959 to 30 -5 -1959. On that date he was verbally informed by the Executive Officer that he had been removed from service and that the order had already been issued. The plaintiff was not allowed to join his post. He filed a representation before the Commissioner. His representation, however, was ignored. He, accordingly, filed title suit No. 48 of 1959. Earlier to that the plaintiff had instituted a money suit being Money suit No. 360 of 1958 on the allegation that he was illegally denied his emoluments by the Special Officer.

(3.) The plaintiff alleged that he was given no opportunity of being heard against the charges, for which he was removed from service. The order by the Special Officer removing him from service was actuated by malice. He did everything against the plaintiff disregarding the statutory rules. The order terminating the contract of service was void.