IV Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the prayer sought for?
172 of 2013 whereby said Court has dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate companyrt and the trial companyrt.
In said enquiry the plaintiff respondent G.C. Pandya was held guilty and awarded punishment of censure on 26.6.2002.
He respondent instituted Civil Suit No.
The first appellate companyrt framed points of determination and thereafter decided the appeal companycurring with the trial companyrt.
Since numberwritten statement was filed by the defendant appellant, there was numberquestion of framing issues in the suit, and judgment companyld have been pronounced under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for short C.P.C. However, the trial companyrt formulated the questions to be decided in the suit as under Whether the plaintiff establishes that, the charge sheet issued against him and thereafter the order of the departmental inquiry and of the punishment is illegal, unconstitutional and required to be rejected?
III Whether the plaintiff establishes that, by treating the promotion with effect from 1/1/2002 the plaintiff is entitled and rightful to avail all the rights of the said post?
Strangely, though the defendant Gujarat Maritime Board present appellant was served and represented through its companynsel, but it did number file any written statement companytradicting the facts alleged in the plaint.
172 of 2013.
It was number a matter to be heard by the Central Administrative Tribunal either as the plaintiff was number a Central Government employee.
The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal.
14 to Ex.
The trial companyrt companysidered the deposition of plaintiff G.C. Pandya and the documentary evidence Ex.
25, and answered each question discussing the evidence on record.
95 of 2009 before the District Judge, Porbandar.
It is pleaded in the plaint that the departmental enquiry was purposely kept pending with a motive to deny promotion to the plaintiff.
II Whether the plaintiff establishes that the act of the defendant preventing the plaintiff from promotion on the post of Chief Engineer is illegal, unconstitutional and requires to be rejected?
569 of 2002 before Civil Judge, Porbandar, for declaration that the departmental enquiry held against him and punishment awarded are illegal.
Hence, this appeal before us through special leave.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
He was charge sheeted for certain irregularities allegedly companymitted by him during the period 1982 1984, due to which the appellant suffered huge losses.
Submissions of the learned companynsel for the parties were companysidered and it is only thereafter, the trial companyrt 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Porbandar passed the judgment and decree dated 7.1.2009 in the suit.
The defendant present appellant thereafter, challenged judgment and decree passed by first appellate companyrt before the High Court, which was registered as Second Appeal No.
The plaintiff further sought his promotion with effect from 1.1.2002.
It was alleged by the plaintiff that the allegations in the charge sheet were false, and the enquiry was initiated to allow promotion of juniors to the plaintiff.
After hearing the parties, said Regular Civil Appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Porbandar, vide judgment and order dated 29.9.2012.
Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the defendant present appellant filed Regular Civil Appeal No.
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent G.C. Pandya was Deputy Engineer civil with the appellant Gujarat Maritime Board.
He was superannuated on 30.6.2002 from service as Superintending Engineer.
