478 of 1962 preferred by him the learned Second Addl.
The trial Court dismissed the suit.
In Civil Appeal No.
Civil Judge, Kanpur, reversed the trial Courts findings and decreed his suit holding that the charge sheet framed against him was vague, that the plaintiff was prejudiced in his defence and was number given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry.
The plaintiff Mohd.
After holding the department disciplinary inquiry against him the inquiry officer submitted his report which was accepted and ultimately he was dismissed from service by an order dated 3rd June, 1955.
The State preferred a second appeal and the High Court has companyfirmed the decree passed by the appeal Court and dismissed the second appeal.
There is numbersubstance in this appeal which has been preferred by the State of U. P. against the judgment and decree dated 25th Nov., 1969 of the High Court of Allahabad in Second Appeal No.
The State of U. P. hag companye up in appeal to this Court.
Sharif since deceased was working as a Head Constable of the Daksiti Guard at P.S. Kakwan District Kanpur.
On 22nd Jan., 1955 he was served with a charge sheet under Section 7 of the Police Act calling upon him to submit his explanation thereto he submitted the explanation on the following day.
After departmental appeal and revision to higher authorities failed, the plaintiff filed a suit challenging his dismissal on the ground that the said order was illegal and void as numberproper inquiry was held against him and numberreasonable opportunity was given to him to defend himself against the charges framed against him and for recovery of arrears of salary.
2226 of 1969.
