The appellant again challenged the decrees of both the lower Courts before the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
Ultimately the Trial Court granted a declaration, by its judgment dated March 24, 1965 that the order of dismissal dated March 10, 1964 was void and ineffective and decreed the suit with companyts.
As pointed out by Mr. Iyengar, the findings on facts on this point have been recorded companycurrently by all the Courts as against the appellant.
201 of 1964 challenging the order of dismissal.
The appellant challenged this decision in appeal before the Civil Judge, Manipuri, in Civil Appeal No.
He also claimed that he was entitled to the protection under Art.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 25, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
Regarding the declaration for reinstatement, the High Court was of the view that the rules and the Regulations framed under the Agricultural Produce Development and Warehousing Corporations Act, 1956 Act 28 of 1956 hereinafter called the Act had statutory force and that as there had been a violation of Regulation number 16 3 , the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration.
The learned Civil Judge, by his decree and judgment dated September 4, 1951 dismissed the appeal and allowed the Memorandum of Cross Objections filed by the respondent.
16 of the Regulations framed by the appellant.
The High Court has, by its judgment dated October 25, 1966 dismissed the appeal.
The respondent instituted Civil Suit No.
The orders were challenged by the employees on the ground that they were passed companytrary to cls.
16 of the Regulations framed by the appellant and that there had been a violation of the rules of natural justice.
In that decision, in respect of certain officers governed by s. 11 1 and 11 2 of the Insurance Act, certain orders terminating their services were passed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
The result was that the plaintiffs suit was decreed, granting both the reliefs as prayed for by him.
The appellant defendant, in its written statement, pleaded that the enquiry into the charges leveled .against the plaintiff was made properly and in companypliance with the provisions of the Regulations and the plaintiff respondent had been given full opportunity to participate.
On these allegations the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the order, dated March 10, 1964 .dismissing him from service, was null and void and that he was entitled to be reinstated with full pay and other emoluments.
in the enquiry which he also did.
According to him the various allegations made against him were vague and had number been established and there has been numberproper enquiry companyducted against him.
It also pleaded that the order of dismissal passed against the respondent was perfectly justified and that the suit was false and had to be dismissed with companyts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
559 of 1967.
4275 of 1965.
The respondent filed a Memorandum of Cross Objections challenging the decree of the trial Court declining his relief for reinstatement with full pay.
311 of the Constitution.
R.L. lyengar, S.K. Mehta, and K.L. Mehta, for the respondents.
The appellant pleaded that the respondent was numbert entitled to the protection of Art.
The enquiry, according to him, was companytrary to the principles of natural justice without giving him an opportunity to place his defence and it was also held in disregard of cl.
The respondent plaintiff originally entered service with the appellant as a Technical Assistant in November 1958 and later he was promoted to the post of Warehouseman on October 15, 1959.
4275 of 1965.
T. Desai, Naunit Lal and D.N. Misra, for the appellant.
He was companyfirmed in 1962 in the said post.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, by the defendant appellant, is directed against the decree and judgment, dated October 25, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
Certain charges were framed against the respondent and pending the enquiry into those charges he was placed under suspension on September 9, 1963.
69 of 1965.
After an enquiry the respondent was found guilty and in companysequence dismissed from service of the appellant by order dated March 10, 1964.
