STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. JAGDISH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal of the State defendant is against the judgment and decree dated 6th December, 1972 of the Additional District Judge, Ajmer confirming the decree passed by the Munsif, Ajmer District, Ajmer declaring the order of termination of the plaintiff-respondent's service as illegal and passing a decree for Rs. 3,400/- for the arrears of salary till the date of the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this litigation, in a nut shell, are as follows: Plaintiff Jagdish Chandra Heda was appointed as an L. D. C. in the office of the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) Excise and Taxation by order dated 20th April, 1963. THE appointment was temporary. It is admitted by the parties that Shri Jagdish Chandra took charge of the post of L. D. C. on 22nd April, 1963. Later on Jagdish Chandra was transferred to the office of the Sales Tax Officer Survey and Investigation, Ajmer against a clear vacant post of an L. D. C. and thereafter he was again transferred to the office of the Sales Tax Officer, Ajmer City, Ajmer. According to the case of the plaintiff the plaintiff's initial appointment was made by the Deputy Commissioner Excise and later on it was extended by him to continue till further orders. On 22nd March, 1966 the Commercial Taxes Officer Ajmer, Mr. R. D. Gupta passed an order suspending the plaintiff. Two days after i. e. on 4th March, 1966, a notice was given to the plaintiff respondent that his temporary service shall stand terminated with effect from 5th May, 1966. This notice was served on the plaintiff on 5th April, 1966. THE plaintiff was relieved of his duties on 5th May, 1966. THE plaintiff sought his remedy by preferring and appeal to the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) challenging the order of suspension and the notice of termination but the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner (Excise ). THE plaintiff again filed an appeal before the Government. But his grievance is that the Government did not take any decision on his appeal, therefore, he was compelled to file a suit in the court of Munsiff Ajmer City East, Ajmer for a declara-tion that the notice of termination was illegal and hence he should be deemed to be in service even after 5th May, 1966. In these circumstances the plaintiff prayed that a decree for Rs. 3,400/- for arrears of pay be passed against the State treating him in service after the date of termination. One of the grounds of the challenge was that the order of termination of service of the plaintiff was passed by Mr. R. D. Gupta who bore an ill will against the plaintiff as he had appeared against Mr. Gupta as a witness in a departmental enquiry and, therefore, the impugned order was mala fide.

(3.) ON appeal the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the finding of the learned trial court but regarding the mala fides the reasoning given by the learned Additional District Judge was different and, therefore, it was urged before me by the learned counsel appearing on behalf on the State that the question of fact regarding mala fides of Mr Gupta could be re-examined by this Court with reference to the evidence of the parties.