PRABHU LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-appellant has challenged the order dated 20. 12. 2000 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Kota whereby the learned Judge has accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 22. 5. 1996 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, (North), Kota and has remanded the case back for decision in the suit afresh.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant was working as Lower Division Clerk (henceforth to be referred to as `the L. D. C. ', for short) in Drainage Division-II, (LDC), Chambal Command, Bundi. THE appellant was on leave from 19. 11. 1974 and the Department duly accepted the said leave. On 19. 3. 1975 the appellant received an order signed by Shri Sadhu Ram, Executive Engineer whereby the appellant was suspended on the ground that a criminal offence has been registered against the appellant and is under investigation. Vide order dated 5. 7. 1975, the charge-sheet was issued to the appellant by Shri Sadhu Ram wherein four charges were levelled against him. Firstly, willful absence from the duty; secondly, misbehaviour and in subordination; thirdly, mishandling of Shri Shamsher Singh, Superintending Engineer and fourthly, attempt to murder Shri Shamsher Singh, Superintending Engineer. According to the charge-sheet dated 18. 3. 1975, Shri Shamsher Singh had lodged the report at Police Station Bheemganj Mandi against the appellant and his brother regarding an incident, which allegedly took place on 17. 3. 1975. THE police registered a case for offence under Section 307, 336 and 448 IPC. After the investigation, the police also submitted a charge-sheet. However, after the trial, vide judgment dated 25. 11. 1975, the appellant was acquitted. THE State had filed an appeal against the acquittal order. However, the appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. Meanwhile, the appellant replied to the charge-sheet. However, the inquiry could not be started. THErefore, Shri Shamsher Singh issued various letters appointing different inquiry officers. Ultimately, Shri Shamsher Singh, the person allegedly assaulted by the appellant appointed Shri Sadhu Ram as the inquiry officer vide his order dated 22. 12. 1975. Interestingly, Shri Singh himself was to be a witness in the departmental inquiry as charge Nos. 3 and 4 related to him. After completion of the inquiry, Shri Sadhu Ram submitted his inquiry report to Shri Shamsher Singh. Shri Shamsher Singh gave a notice to the appellant before inflicting the proposed punishment enclosing therewith the copy of the inquiry report. THE appellant replied to the said notice on 6. 8. 1976. He also raised the preliminary objection that the Superintending Engineer, Shri Shamsher Singh, could not be the disciplinary authority as he was interested in the case himself. Notwithstanding this objection, vide order dated 27. 9. 1976, Shri Shamsher Singh dismissed the appellant from the service. Since the appellant was aggrieved by the dismissal order, he filed a departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 7. 10. 1978, the Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal and converted the order of dismissal into an order of termination.

(3.) THE power to remand a case is contained in Section 107 of the Code as well in Order 41 Rules 23 to 26-A of the Code. THE power to record additional evidence at the appellate stage is contained in Order 41 Rules 27, 28 and 29 of the Code. THEse powers are quoted below.