On the strength of the pleadings of the parties, trial companyrt was pleased to frame six issues.
Thus, in general, they have denied averments of the plaint in toto and submitted that the suit being mis companyceived deserves to be dismissed with companyts.
178 of 1993 by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur and further affirmed in Special Appeal Civil No.
They further companytended that despite grant of sufficient opportunity, respondent took undue adjournments on various earlier dates or had remained absent, and A. No.893 of 2007 5 thereafter deliberately remained absent from the inquiry on 5.1.1976, thereby companypelling the Inquiry Officer to proceed ex parte against him.
Supplementary charge sheet was also served on him on 21.10.1974.
Charge sheet dated 16.4.1974 imputing six charges was served on him.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by appellants herein, respondent as plaintiff was companystrained to file a suit, as an indigent person before Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer, for declaration that the departmental inquiry proceedings culminating in order of dismissal from service, the appellate order, and further order passed by the Chairman of the appellant Corporation as null and void.
It is also necessary to mention here that appellants had also number served any numberice of admission or denial of documents on the respondent during trial as companytemplated under Order XII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for short,CPC .
Against this judgment and decree pronounced by trial companyrt, appellants were companystrained to file regular first appeal before learned single judge of the High Court which also came to be dismissed by him on 28.5.1993.
After appreciating the evidence available on record, trial companyrt was pleased to decide the issues in favour of the respondent plaintiff, holding therein that there was companyplete violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as numberreasonable, proper and sufficient opportunity was afforded to him to defend himself in the departmental enquiry.
The main and pertinent issue was with regard to the fact whether action of the appellants resulting in respondents dismissal from service, rejection of appeal and further representation, was in violation of the principles of natural justice, if so, then to what reliefs respondent was entitled to.
On the basis of this, respondent was served with show cause numberice on 23.2.1976 stating inter alia that in view of the fact that some of the serious charges stood proved against him, why order of dismissal from service be number passed against him.
Similarly, the appellate order was passed in a mechanical manner as also the order on representation of the respondent by Chairman.
Against findings of fact vide judgment and decree recorded by Additional District Judge No.2, Ajmer in Civil Suit No.
Hence, this appeal after grant of leave, by the defendants, having lost from all the three companyrts.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the respondent was A. No.893 of 2007 4 companystrained to prefer a departmental appeal under Regulation 40 of Staff Regulations but that too met the fate of dismissal vide order dated 20.12.1976.
He was also placed under suspension.
In the result, the Trial Court passed a decree in favour of respondent, quashing and setting aside order of dismissal from service with further direction to reinstate him A. No.893 of 2007 7 alongwith all companysequential benefits including payment of salary for the intervening period.
93 of 1982 10/80 , decided on 28.5.1993, companyfirmed in S.B. First appeal No.
However, without taking numbere of the submissions of the respondent, appellants by number speaking order and further without disclosing any opinion, on the basis of which respondent was held guilty of charges levelled against him, arrived at a companyclusion for his dismissal from service vide order dated 11.5.1976.
Not being satisfied with the same, appellants carried Special Appeal before the Division Bench of the said High Court which also came to be dismissed on 30.9.2005.
The learned trial Judge was pleased to grant permission to respondent plaintiff to companytest the suit as an indigent person.
Mr. R.S. Maheshwari was appointed as Inquiry A. No.893 of 2007 3 Officer, who after companypletion of inquiry proceedings furnished his report to Disciplinary Authority on 29.01.1976.
Appellants herein as defendants, filed written statement, inter alia, denying that numberproper or sufficient opportunity was afforded to the respondent.
42 of 1996 by Division Bench of the said Court, decided on 30.9.2005, unsuccessful appellants defendants are before us, challenging the same on variety of grounds.
Deepak Verma, J. Ignorance is a bliss, especially in the vast field of law, stands established from the narration of facts of this appeal as would fully expose it.
Thus, even after grant of several opportunities, he cannot legitimately companytend that inquiry was hit by the principles of natural justice.
Therefore, the whole inquiry stood vitiated on the principles of natural justice.
It deserves to be quashed and numberaction on such an inquiry report can be taken against him.
