RAMANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Ramanand was Assistant Station Master of Neem-ka-Thana station in the years 1943 and 1944. He was dismissed from service on 12th May, 1944, on the ground that he had despatched 75 bags of chillies without booking them. He addressed a notice dated 3rd January, 1950, to the Dominion of India through the General Manager, B. B. and C. I. Railway stating that he had been wrongfully dismissed on account of the prejudice of the then Traffic superintendent, though it was wrong that 75 bags of chillies had been despatched by him without any booking. He said in that notice that he had no other remedy to get himself re-employed except by knocking at the door of the Court of law, and said in the end that if within two months he would not be reinstated, he would take legal action against the Railway, and it would be responsible for his expenses and losses incurred thereby. This notice was followed by the suit out of which this appeal arises, and which was filed on 11th of May, 1950, against the Union of India through the General manager, B. B. and C. I. Railway. It was alleged that a wrong charge was laid at the door of the plaintiff that he had sent 75 bags of chillies without any booking, and that his dismissal was wrongful. It was stated that notice under Section 80, C. P. C. had been served upon the defendant, and that the cause of action arose on 12th of May, 1944, when the plaintiff was dismissed, and on 7th of March, 1950, the date of expiry of the notice. The relief claimed was that a declaration be given that the plaintiff had been wrongfully dismissed by the defendant, and that he was entitled to be reinstated to the post of Assistant Station Master. In the alternative it was prayed that if the plaintiff be not reinstated to that post, he be awarded Rs. 5000/- for wrongful dismissal.

(2.) THE defendant filed a written state ment, and pleaded inter alia that the notice purporting to be under Section 80, C. P. C. was defective.

(3.) THE learned Civil Judge, Jaipur District, who tried the case, dismissed the suit on the ground that the notice under Section 80, C, P. C. was defective inasmuch as it had not been stated as to what relief the plaintiff claimed. The plaintiff went in appeal, and the learned District Judge, Jaipur District, concurred with the finding of the first Court that the notice was bad in law, inasmuch as the relief which the plaintiff wanted was not given therein. The plaintiff has come in second appeal.