RABINDRA NATH Vs. G M N F RLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that the order dated 8-1-1964 passed by defendant No. 2 dismissing the plaintiff from service with effect from 15-1-1964 is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. Another prayer that has been made is that the order dated 3-2-1964 passed by defendant No. 1 dismissing the departmental appeal was also illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) Admittedly the plaintiff was an employee of N.F. Railway and was posted at Katihar. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him by an order dated 25th September, 1962. The allegation was that by introducing himself as a clerk of Katihar district office the plaintiff got encashed some bogus substitute salary bills. On that account, it was said that the plaintiff had defrauded the railway administration. A departmental enquiry was conducted in which the plaintiff was found guilty. A second show cause notice was, therefore, given to him to explain as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The plaintiff-appellant submitted his explanation but the same was not accepted and the plaintiff was dismissed by order dated 8-1-1964 passed by defendant No. 2. His appeal also was dismissed on 3-2-1964. The plaintiff thereafter filed the suit for the relief aforementioned on the ground that the enquiry itself was violative of the principle of natural justice inasmuch as he wanted to be examine in his defence some witnesses, who were in the employment of the railway. But the railway administration did not allow those persons to be examined as witnesses. The other ground for attack was that he was not supplied with necessary papers during the domestic enquiry and that also caused prejudice to him. It may be mentioned that the suit was filed on 12-2-1966 but the Union of India was not made a party. The General Manager and others filed written statements stating that the suit was bad for non-impleading the Union of India. Their further case was that the plaintiff had earlier moved the High Court of Assam and Nagaland at Gauhati in Civil Rule No. 112 of 1964 and the writ application was dismissed by the learned Judges. On merit their case was that the principle of natural justice was complied with and there was no infraction of any rule. After this written statement was filed the plaintiff filed an application on 14-6-1967 praying to implead the Union of India by amending the plaint. After hearing both sides the learned Munsif allowed the amendment petition and impleaded the Union of India as a party defendant to the suit by order dated 27-6-1967. Although the Union of India was allowed time to file written statement, but it appears that no separate written statement was filed on their behalf.

(3.) The trial Court on a consideration of the evidence held that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. It also found that the departmental enquiry did not suffer from any defect. It, therefore, dismissed the suit. Thereafter an appeal was taken to the District Judge, Purnea, which was heard by the Subordinate Judge, Katihar. The learned Subordinate Judge disagreeing with the trial Court held that the departmental enquiry was not fair, but it agreeing with the trial Court held that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. It was held that the suit was barred by limitation. It, therefore, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter this second appeal has been filed.