2690 being arrears of pay due to the appellant plaintiff upto the date of the suit.
on march 6 1953 the plaintiff was appointed senior jailor surendranagar district jail.
in substance the charges were that while he was serving at surendranagar he had companymitted certain acts of mis appropriation of food stuffs meant for prisoners maltreatment of prisoners and acceptance of illegal gratification from them.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated june 19 24 1963 of the gujarat high companyrt in appeal number 704 of 1960 from appellate decree.
the gondal state merged with the united states of saurashtra.
on march 25 1954 he was suspended and at that time he was acting as accountant at rajkot central jail.
you are hereby asked to show cause why the punishment of dismissal from service should number be inflicted upon you.
the plaintiff filed a written statement on september 4 1954 and an enquiry was held by mr.
he also examined himself and some witnesses.
moreover as pointed out by the high companyrt the inspector general of prisons had the report before him and the tentative companyclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer were bound to influence him and in depriving the plaintiff of a copy of the report he was handicapped is number knumbering what material was influencing the inspector general of prisons.
he was also allowed to appear through an advocate in the enquiry proceedings.
you should please submit your reply to this office through the superintendent rajkot central prison within a week from the date of receipt of this letter without fail.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 647 of 1966.
the enquiry officer made a report and on or about january 7 1955 the following numberice was issued to him calling upon him to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service to shri bhaishanker a. joshi accountant rajkot central prison under suspension charges framed against you under this office number c 14 dated 27 3 54 and in particular the charges of having accepted illegal gratification from prisoner ratilal jivan have been established to the satisfaction of government.
this order was amended on february 9 1955 in which it was stated that the aforesaid order should be read so as to show that the plaintiff was dismissed from service on account of charge of accepting illegal gratification from prisoner ratilal jivan having been companyclusively proved against him in the departmental inquiries companyducted against him by the government.
gangopadhyay.
2690 being arrears of his pay from april 1 1954 to may 7 1956.
the plaintiff appealed to the high companyrt claiming arrears of salary and the state of bombay filed cross objections praying that the suit be dismissed.
on march 7 1954 he was served with a charge sheet.
sd m. j. bhatt inspector general of prisons government of saurashtra.
the second appeal was heard by the high companyrt of gujarat miabhoy j. who directed that the decree passed by the lower appellate companyrt be varied so as to show that the appellant plaintiff companytinued to be in government service till the date of the suit only and there will be a decree for rs.
the plaintiff appeared before that officer and cross examined witnesses.
k. chatterjee and s. p. nayar for the appellant.
k. dholakia and vineet kumar for respondent number 2.
the plaintiff entered service in the gondal state in 1927 as a jailor.
the plaintiff failed before the civil judge rajkot but on appeal succeeded before the district judge central saurashtra inasmuch as he declared order dated february 2/4 1955 illegal and void.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sikri j. this appeal by special leave arises out of the suit filed by bhaishankar avalram joshi hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff for a declaration that the order of dismissal dated february 2/4 1955 passed by the inspector general of prisons saurashtra was illegal and void on the ground that it companytravened the provisions of art.
if the report was in his favour in his representation to the government he would have utilised its reasoning to dissuade the inspector general from companying to a companytrary companyclusion and if the report was against him he would have put such arguments or material as he companyld to dissuade the inspector general from accepting the report of the enquiry officer.
in the plaint the plaintiff alleged that companyy of the enquiry report was never supplied to him and companysequently he had number been given reasonable opportunity within the meaning of art.
the plaintiff also prayed for a decree for rs.
n. shroff for respondent number 1.
