the appellant companytended that the order of dismissal had number been served on him and therefore numberoccasion had arisen for challenging the order.
when the matter came on for final disposal on august 24 1976 the learned subordinate judge dismissed the suit without trial on the preliminary point that it was number maintainable.
the institute however framed a charge on numberember 5 1974 against the petitioner alleging that he was attempting to draw the sum by tendering a false bill.
the appellant filed a second appeal in the high companyrt of delhi.
on september 3 1976 the institute filed a reply stating that the stay application had become infructuous as the appellant had been dismissed from service.
on october 15/16 1975 a second charge was framed against the appellant alleging that he was guilty of disobeying an officer order requiring him to hand over charge of the library.
the enquiry officer companypleted his report on august 9 1975 holding that the charge of presenting a false bill was proved against the appellant.
a member of the executive companyncil of the institute was appointed to enquire into the charge and the appellant participated in the enquiry proceedings.
he expressed the view that the appellants remedy lay in damages and number in a suit for declaration.
subsequently he was given additional charge of the library of the institute.
shortly before concluding his submissions in this companyrt he filed an application in this appeal praying for amendment of the plaint by the inclusion of such relief.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 18th april 1980 of the delhi high companyrt in regular second appeal number 33 of 1977.
the appellant was also served with a numberice of the same date along with a companyy of the enquiry report requiring him to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service.
the appellant strenuously urged that the appeal continues to survive and he attempted to establish that among the reliefs claimed in his amendment application filed in the high companyrt he had included a relief for declaring the order of dismissal invalid and he said the amendment had been wrongly refused.
laxmi anand and samir prakash for the respondent.
anand prakash c.s.
and number this appeal.
the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned senior subordinate judge on january 22 1977 who endorsed the view of the trial companyrt that the remedy of the appellant lay in damages instead of by a suit for declaration.
350 to the institute claiming reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by him in the delivery of a child to his wife during the previous month.
in march 1974 the appellant submitted a bill of rs.
the appellant then filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the companyrt of the learned subordinate judge delhi on numberember 15 1975 and obtained an ex parte order restraining the institute and its officers from dismissing him.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2613 of 1980.
it was alleged that an unsigned companyy of an order of dismissal had been received by him and numberhing more.
the appellant was appointed in 1968 to the post of research officer of the institute of companystitutional and parliamentary studies new delhi as a society registered under the societies registration act 1860 and was later designated as assistant director.
the appellant appealed and during the pendency of the appeal the learned senior subordinate judge passed an order dated august 28 1976 declining to grant an ex parte stay order.
during the pendency of the proceedings the appellant appealed to the executive council of the institute to change the enquiry officer but it is alleged by the appellant while the appeal was pending consideration the appellant received a memorandum dated july 17/18 1975 from the executive chairman of the institute placing the appellant under suspension.
vaidyanathan probir chowdhry ms.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by pathak j. this appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the high companyrt of delhi dismissing the appellants second appeal.
the original reliefs claimed in the suit consisted of a decree of declaration that the proceedings taken against the appellant upto the framing of the second charge on october 15/16 1975 were invalid and a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from dismissing the appellant.
on april 18 1980 the high companyrt rejected the amendment application and also dismissed the second appeal.
during the pendency of the appeal he moved an application for amendment of the plaint.
petitioner in person.
the appellant attempted to place his case before us on its merits but strong objection was taken by the respondents to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the order dismissing the appellant had number been challenged by him that the order had become final and that the companytinued existence of the order companystituted an impediment to the companysideration of the reliefs claimed in the suit.
