He was permanent on 26 5 1948.
From D. T. S. BKI.
On 7 2 1949, the respondent received a memorandum from the Station Master, Ajmer, to the effect that he had been placed under suspension from that date under the orders of the Traffic Superintendent, Ajmer.
1958 AIR SC 905 The Judgment was delivered by S. K. DAS K. DAS, J. This is an appeal on behalf of the Union of India which has been brought to this Court on a certificate granted by the learned Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer and is directed against the Judgment and decree of the said Judicial Commissioner, dated 15 2 1954.
2 1 0 per ticket as against the companyrect charge of Rs.
P. T. O. On the reverse appear the following numberes Settlement of your dues will be made at Ajmer C o. S. M. You will be given a subsistence grant at the rate of 1/2 of your pay for the period you remained under suspension i.e., from 8 2 49 to 18 3 49, both dates inclusive.
This charge sheet was served on the respondent on 22 2 1949, and he was asked to submit his written explanation within seven days.
2093A. You are hereby informed that in accordance with the orders passed by me you are given one months pay in lieu of numberice of removal from service with effect from 18 3 1949 A N. Date 16 3 49.Sd.
B. C. I. Railway.
On 16 3 1949, an order was passed against the respondent stating that he would be given one months pay in lieu of numberice of removal from service with effect from 18 3 1949.
Notice of imposition of the penalty of removal from service under item 8 of Rule 1702.
The respondent submitted his explanation on 28 2 1949, and in that explanation he denied the allegations made against him.
This was the order impugned by the respondent in his suit and must be quoted in full.
D. T. S. BKI.
Then, on 17 10 1949, the respondent served a numberice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the General Manager, B. C. I. Railway, and on 9 1 1950, the respondent brought a suit against the then Dominion of India in which he asked for the following reliefs a declaration that the discharge of the plaintiff from service is illegal and arbitrary and that the plaintiff is entitled to the companypensation claimed for for payment of Rs.
The learned District Judge affirmed in effect the findings of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, by his judgment dated 24 3 1953.
1120 9 7 for payment of such amount as may fall due from the date of suit to the date of his re instatement and for companyts of the suit The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Ajmer, dismissed the suit on the findings 1 that the numberice under S. 80, Civil Procedure Code, was number in accordance with law, 2 that the order of removal of the respondent from service was number illegal, and 3 that the respondent was number entitled either to claim re instatement or damages.
The respondent then preferred an appeal which was heard by the learned District Judge, Ajmer.
The learned Additional Subordinate Judge pronounced his judgment on 5 11 1952.
Under Rule 1717 an appeal against these orders lies to T. S. Ajmer The Respondent preferred an appeal against the order, which was dismissed on 3rd August 1949.
It was alleged against the respondent that on that date he had refused to issue forty eight third class tickets for Makrana to a passenger, unless the latter paid Rs.
The respondent, who was the plaintiff in the companyrt of first instance, was appointed an assistant booking clerk at Ajmer in the then B. B. and C. Railway system on 15 7 1947.
To Jeewan Ram, Y 2093 A. B. C. AII No.
The facts giving rise to the appeal are these.
By that judgment the learned Judicial Commissioner reversed the decision of the companyrts below and made a declaration in favour of the respondent to the effect that the order of removal from service passed against him on 16 3 1949, was illegal and ineffective.
1 15 0 and that he had further refused to issue all the forty eight tickets for that station.
A charge sheet was drawn up against the respondent on 21 2 1949, with regard to the allegations referred to above, and he was directed to show cause why he should number be punished with dismissal from service under R. 1702 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol.
