STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RATANLAL SOGANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State of Rajasthan and the Collector, Ajmer against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Aimer dated 6th October, 1959, arises out of a suit instituted by respondent Ratanlal Sogani for a declaration that the order of termination of his service No. 1544 dated 11 -5 -1950 (Ex, A -10) is null and void and as such he should be deemed to be in service of the Court of Wards. Further a decree for arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 11323A and Rs. 760/ - spent by him in the defence of two criminal cases launched by the Court of Wards against him and a further sum of Rs. 2000/ - as damages be passed in his favour. The respondent alleged that he was a permanent employee of the department of the Court of Wards, Aimer and was placed under suspension on 24th September, 1949 by the Additional Assistant Commissioner and Officer -in -Charge, Court of Wards, Aimer on the pretext of facilitating thorough investigation into the complaints of misconduct against him and that on 8th April, 1950 sanction for the prosecution of the plaintiff for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was also given by the same officer. But without holding any departmental enquiry and awaiting the result of the criminal cases, the Additional Assistant Commissioner, mala fide ordered the termination of the respondent's service, on llth May 1950 vide Order No. 1544 dated 11th May, 1950. It was alleged that the order of termination of the plaintiff's service was a guise for his dismissal on the ground of alleged misconduct and was a fraud perpetrated on the constitutional protection guaranteed to the plaintiff under the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the various rules which govern his service conditions, that no opportunity as required by law was afforded to the plaintiff before the said order was passed and the principles of natural justice were not even followed. It was also alleged that in one of the criminal cases the plaintiff was discharged and in the other he was acquitted. The plaintiff, therefore, after giving a notice to the Chief Secretary, Government of Aimer, State of Aimer, the Deputy Commissioner, State of Aimer and the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, instituted the present suit. It may be stated that the suit was instituted in the beginning against the Union of India, New Delhi. The Deputy Commissioner, State of Aimer, Incharge Court of Wards, State of Ajmer and the Chief Secretary, Government of Aimer, but subsequently after the merger of the State of Aimer, into the State of Rajasthan the latter was impleaded as a party and the suit continued against the State of Rajasthan and the Collector, Aimer.

(2.) THE defendants contested the suit and it was stated that the plaintiff was only a temporary employee of the estates under the superintendence of the Court of Wards and was being paid by the estate to which he was attached, that he was not a civil servant and could not invoke the protection afforded under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It was stated that the order of suspension against the plaintiff was passed because there were serious allegations of cheating, fraud and drawing of bogus travelling allowance and so the matter was referred to the Anti Corruption Department who after enquiry found a prima facie case for his prosecution for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and pending enquiry into the allegations of misconduct, order of the plaintiff's suspension was passed. Subsequently owing to the release of the estate of Pisangan from the superintendence of the Court of Wards on 16th May, 1950 to which estate the plaintiff was attached his services were terminated by the department with effect from 16th June, 1950 because a consequent reduction in the establishment had to be made. It was also stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to any decree for the amounts mentioned in the plaint and that his claim for the recovery of the said amounts was barred by limitation under Arts. 14, 22 and 23 of the Limitation Act and also under section 27 of the Ajmer Government Court of Wards Regulations.

(3.) IT may be mentioned here that the plaintiff was permitted to sue in forma pauperis because it was found that he had not sufficient means to pay the court -fee. The decree, therefore directed that the court -fee shall be the first charge on the subject -matter of the suit. Costs were also allowed to the plaintiff to the extent of his success and, three months' time was allowed to the defendants to pay the decretal amount to the plaintiff.