PRABHU LAL UPADHYA Vs. DISTBOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three connected appeals against a decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge of Agra granting the plaintiff Rs. 3000 damages against defendant 1, the Agra District Board, and Rupees 1000 damages against defendant 2, Rai Bahadur Amba Prasad, the Chairman of the said Board. The suit was brought by the plaintiff against the said District Board and its Chairman claiming the following reliefs: (a) A declaration that a meeting of the Board held on 29 October 1931 was not held in accordance with the rules and that the proceedings thereof were conducted in an illegal and high handed way and that it be further declared that the resolution passed at the said meeting purporting to dismiss the plaintiff from his office as Secretary of the said Board was null and void, illegal, wrongful, unjustifiable, ultra vires and incapable of being given effect to. (b) That an injunction be granted to the plaintiff restraining the said Board from giving effect to the said resolution dismissing the plaintiff from his service, (c) That the said Board be ordered to reinstate the plaintiff in his appointment from the date of his alleged dismissal, (d) In the alternative if it be held that the plaintiff is not entitled to be reinstated, Rs. 21,000 damages against the defendants or either of them who may be held liable.

(2.) The learned Civil Judge refused to grant the plaintiff any of the reliefs claimed under (a), (b) and (c), but he held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal and he gave the plaintiff Rs. 3000 damages as against the District Board of Agra and Rs. 1000 against Amba Prasad, the Chairman thereof. First Appeal No. 341 is an appeal by the District Board of Agra against the said decree and First Appeal No. 346 of 1933 is an appeal by defendant 2, Amba Prasad, against the said decree. First Appeal No. 348 of 1933 is the plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of his claims for a declaration, injunction and reinstatement and in the alternative the plaintiff contends that if he is not entitled to such relief then the damages awarded should be increased by a sum of Rs. 9500.

(3.) The case for the plaintiff was that he was appointed the Secretary of the District Board of Agra on 1 September 1929 at a salary of Rs. 250 per mensem to be increased annually by Rs. 10 per mensem up to a maximum of Rs. 400 per mensem. He alleged that since his appointment he had faithfully discharged his duties to the best of his ability but that on 29 October 1931 the said Board had illegally passed a resolution purporting to dismiss him from his office as Secretary and that in consequence of such resolution he had been prevented from carrying on his duties as Secretary and had been deprived of his salary. It was the plaintiff's case that this resolution purporting to dismiss biro was the result of ill-feeling existing between Amba Prasad, the Chairman, and the plaintiff's brother Joti Prasad who was a member of the Board. It was alleged that Amba Prasad had acted maliciously and had persuaded a large number of the members of the Board to support him in a campaign to procure the plaintiff's dismissal and that such campaign ultimately ended in the meeting of 29 October 1931 when the resolution complained of was passed. According to the plaintiff he was served with a copy of certain vague charges but was not given a reasonable opportunity of defending himself. Further the plaintiff contended that the meeting itself at which the said resolution was passed was illegally convened and that the said resolution was not passed by a two-thirds majority as required by law. Further it was said that during the said meeting Joti Prasad and another member of the Board demanded a poll which was wrongfully refused by the Chairman. In the circumstances the plaintiff contended that the said resolution purporting to dismiss him was illegal and of no effect and that he was in law still the Secretary of the Board and consequently that he was entitled to the reliefs claimed. The claim for damages was a purely alternative claim which was made to meet the contingency of the Court refusing to grant relief by way of declaration, injunction and reinstatement.