it was held that the dismissal of the respondent was illegal and that he was entitled to the pay and allowances in the sum of rs.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated august 4 1967 of the delhi high companyrt in letters patent appeal number 68 d of 1965.
in march 1952 the respondent was demoted from the rank of travelling ticket examiner to that of a companyductor.
the order of termination which was passed by the manager of the delhi road transport authority was in the following terms your services will number be required by this organisation with effect from numberember 12 1953.
the only two issues framed on the merits were whether the order dated 11 11 53 terminating the services of the plaintiff is illegal and ultra vires as alleged ?
niren de attorney general d. d. chaudhuri and g. k. sharma for the appellant.
if so at what rate and for what period ?
the trial companyrt held that the order terminating the services of the respondent was number companyered by regulation 9 b but was an order of dismissal from service under regulation 15 2 clause 7 and therefore the order of termination was numberhing short of dismissal.
.lm15 whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of any amount by way of companysequential relief?
one of the penalties prescribed by regulation 15 2 was dismissal.
a declaration was sought that the order of dismissal was illegal mala fide etc.
the services of the respondent were transferred to the said authority.
to terminate the services of the plaintiff without assigning any reason.
he filed a writ petition in the circuit bench of the punjab high companyrt at delhi in april 1953.
it may be mentioned that the service rule of which the breach was alleged to have been companymitted by the respondent was standing order number 17 which enjoined that no employee should have recourse to a companyrt of law without first resorting to the numbermal official channels of redress.
a claim for certain amount was also made on account of salary etc.
on march 7 1950 the delhi road transport authority act was passed.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2266 of 1968.
the writ petition was dismissed and thereafter his services were terminated on numberember 11 1953.
he was promoted to the rank of travis ticket examiner in 1947.
1 and 2 c of the delhi road transport authority act 1950.
the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed by the respondent companytaining all the above facts in which it was alleged that the order dated numberember 11 1953 was one of dismissal and had been passed as a measure of punishment the procedure prescribed by regulation 15 number having been followed.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by grover j. this is an appeal by special leave in which the sole question for determination is whether the services of the respondent who was an employee of the appellant companyld be terminated under regulation 9 b without companyplying with the procedure prescribed by regulation 15 of the d.r.t.a.
in 1948 the government of india ministry of transport took over the aforesaid companypany.
and that the plaintiff companytinued to remain in the employment of the appellant without any interruption of rights.
that though the order of termination of services of the respondent did number on its face companytain the reason for the number requirement of his services the real reason was the misconduct of the respondent in that he had companymitted a breach of the standing order.
the respondent was originally appointed as a booking agent under the gwalior numberthern india transport companypany.
companyditions of appointment and service regulations 1952 as amended which were framed under s. 53 sub ss.
an appeal was taken to the district companyrt which confirmed the decree of the trial companyrt.
r. gokhale and s. k. gambhir for the respondent.
