The plaintiff joined the Railway service in 1918.
The trial Court found that the defendant had number proved that the plaintiff had executed any service agreement and that being so there was number question of his discharge from service on a months numberice and without formulating a charge sheet and giving him an opportunity to answer the same.
1708 RI you are given one months pay in lieu of numberice of discharge from service with effect from the 4th July 1949 A. N. On the 30h July 1949 the plaintiff appealed from the order passed by the chief administrative Officer and companytended that the said order was illegal, being in companytravention of section 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
AIR 1954 SC 632 The Judgment was delivered by S. R. DAS R. DAS J. This is an appeal in a suit for a declaration that the order of the plaintiffs removal from service passed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the East Punjab Railway, Delhi, on the 30th June 1949 and companymunicated to him on the 4th July 1949 was wrong, illegal, ultra vires and void in law and that he was still an employee of the Railway and entitled to work as such.
The plaintiff thereupon, on the 3rd October 1950, filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises.
That order was companymunicated to the plaintiff by a letter Ex.
The plaintiff accordingly assumed charge in the office of the Divisional Superintendent, East Punjab Railway, at Ferozepore Cantonment on the 30th June 1948 but was immediately thereafter put under suspension and remained under suspension till the 19th August 1948.
On the 30th June 1949 the chief Administrative officer, East Punjab, Railway, in exercise of his special powers made an order Ex.
D/8 removing the plaintiff from service in terms of his agreement.
In June 1948 the Inspector General of Special Police Establishment decided to revert the plaintiff to the East Punjab Railway service.
In March 1945 he was selected as Railway Sectional Officer of the Delhi Special Police Establishment.
D/14 dated the 1st July 1949, reading as follows You are hereby informed that in accordance with the order passed by A.O.R., Delhi, in exercise of his special powers vested in him under Para.
That appeal was dismissed by Railway Board in November 1949.
point was taken that the plaintiff had number in fact executed any service agreement in terms of which he companyld be removed from service on one months numberice.
On the 20th August1948 the plaintiff was reinstated, the period of suspension being treated as leave.
The present appeal has been filed in this Court with a certificate granted by the East Punjab High Court under Article 133 of the Constitution.
Accordingly a decree was passed in terms of the prayer.
On appeal, the East Punjab High Court reversed the decision and dismissed the plaintiffs suit.
The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff.
