The decision of the High Court has been challenged before us on the ground that the finding of the lower appellate companyrt was binding on the High Court in second appeal and in view of section 100 of the CPC it had numberjurisdiction to re appraise the evidence and companye to a companytrary finding.
The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the judgment before the High Court in second appeal which was allowed and the suit was again dismissed.
The suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt but on appeal the First Additional District Judge, Gwalior decreed the same.
He asserted that he had numberbias against the plaintiff and when the latter applied for appointment in the State Transport Department after the termination of his service, he Shri Shukla had given him a letter of recommendation and appreciation.
The appellants companynsel placed before us the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court as also the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led by them in support of the companyrectness of the findings of Additional District Judge, Gwalior.
The First Appellate Court answered the question in favour of the appellant and granted him a decree as prayed for while the trial companyrt and the High Court took a different view The learned Counsel for the appellant companytended that in view of several recent decisions of this Court the form of order terminating the services of a government servant is number companyclusive of its true nature and it is the duty of the companyrt to examine its real character and further if the companyrt be of the view that the order of termination has been in the facts and circumstances of a given case passed by way of punishment without holding an inquiry it should strike it down as illegal.
By the Circular the subordinate jail officers were asked number to involve themselves in sending anonymous companyplaints.
His service was terminated soon thereafter.
The plaintiff appellant has number companye to this Court in the present appeal by special leave.
The Inspector General is stated to have companydoned the lapse and assured him that he would be transferred to Indore as prayed for.
He, however, proceeded to examine a Circular Ext.
Shri B.N. Shukla who had, by the time the trial of the suit was taken up, retired from service, went to the witness box to support the defence case.
He was interviewed with the Inspector General of Prisons when he accepted that in fact he had written the anonymous companyplaint and tendered his apology.
Later, another allegation was made against him in December 1964 that he had sent an anonymous companyplaint on behalf of some of the prisoners to the Vigilant Commissioner.
The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge indicates that the Circumstances pleaded in the plaint and mentioned above did number lead him to the companyclusion in favour of the plaintiff.
D 3 the plaintiff was visited by a stigma and the termination order read along with the Circular must, therefore, be treated to be penal in nature.
As has been pointed out earlier, the order itself does number say so.
He filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises challenging the termination order as illegal on the ground that although it was, on its face, a termination order simpliciter it was passed as a measure of punishment without holding an inquiry.
The High Court while reversing the finding pointed out that the Circular did number specifically name the plaintiff and was number issued simultaneously with the termination order.
If the answer be in the negative, the appellant being a temporary servant had numberright to companytinue in service which companyld be terminated without assigning any reason as was done.
The appellant has also made allegations of mala fides against Shri B.N. Shukla, Superintendent, Gwalior Jail, who according to his case was instrumental in getting him thrown out of service.
The appellant after sending his reply proceeded on leave.
According to the statements made in the plaint, a departmental inquiry on the basis of certain allegations had been initiated against the appellant in 1964 but was left inconclusive.
The defendants did number deny the inconclusive disciplinary inquiry of 1964 number the facts that an allegation was made against him about sending of the anonymous companyplaint and that he had made a written admission accompanied with regrets, but the other allegations were refuted.
Later he made a prayer for his transfer from Gwalior to Indore.
D 3 issued by the authorities about a month after the termination order and accepted the plaintiffs case on its basis, observing that by the issuance of the said Circular Ext.
1 and 2, it was pleaded that the case of the plaintiff appellant that he was removed from service by way of punishment was incorrect.
In the written statement of the defendants Nos.
The issue on which the result of the present case is dependent is whether the impugned order of termination of the appellants services had been passed as a measure of punishment or number.
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. The appellant was appointed temporarily as an Assistant Jailor in the State of Madhya Pradesh and his services were terminated in 1965 without assigning any reason.
In support of his case that the order of termination of his services was passed as a punishment numberdirect numberdirect evidence was led by the appellant.
