It is seen from the original order of Dismissal dated 14.5.1949 that the respondent had been informed by the instruction appended to that order that he would be given subsistence allowance at the rate of 50 of his pay for the period from 17.2.1949 to 14.5.1949, both days inclusive, when he remained under suspension.
This order of dismissal was companyfirmed by the General Manager, Western Railways in the respondents appeal which was dismissed on 10.5.1967.
After the dismissal of second appeals on 6.3.1963 the petitioner moved the Payment of Wages Authority on 25.3.1963 by a petition filed under section 15 2 of the Act claiming wages for the period from 17.2.1949, the date of the original suspension, to 28.2.1963 less subsistence allowance, namely, Rs.
The learned District Judge directed the Authority under the Act to calculate the amount of salary and dearness allowance payable to the respondent as per his direction on the basis of the respondents basic salary as on 14.5.1949, the date of his original dismissal from service, after deducting the usual Provident Fund deduction and other permissible deductions, if any.
Both the parties filed revision petitions against the order of the learned District Judge.
On the basis of the respondents declaration, he was taken as a Clerk in the former B.B. C.I. Railway, which eventually became the Western Railway.
The respondent instituted a suit in the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Karachi for declaration that the order of discharge was invalid.
The Divisional Personnel officer had filed this Civil Appeal by special leave against those orders of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
Both parties filed revision petitions in the High Court against the order of the learned District Judge.
During the pendency of that suit there was partition of India and he migrated to India and reported for duty to the Transfer officer India at Ambala Cantonment on 8.1.1948.
The respondent challenged the order of dismissal by filing Writ Petition No, 558 of 1967 which was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court on 21.11.1971 holding that the departmental inquiry was properly companyducted and that the dismissal is valid but number retrospectively from 14.5.1949.
On a perusal of the two charges, we are of the opinion that the fresh charge dated 22.3.1965 is only a single charge and that the second allegation, namely, the declaration dated 26.1.1948 made by the respondent after he joined the Ex B.B. I. Railway, was only intended to be relied upon for proving that charge.
24,792 7 and thereafter filed seven more petitions once in every six months claiming in all wages of Rs.
The other objection raised under order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the fact that the claim for wages had number been put forward in the civil suit and companynected appeal and second appeal has also been rejected by the High Court.
98/ plus Rs.
The respondent was employed as an Assistant Sub Divisional Clerk at Sukkar in the Karachi Division of the North Western Railway.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 28th February, 1979 of the Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Revn.
Subsequently, the Chief Engineer, Western Railway started flesh disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and issued a fresh charge sheet with a statement of allegations against him on 4.11.1963.
The respondent thereafter filed a suit on 10.1.1950 for declaration that the order of discharge was void and obtained decree in the Trial Court, which was modified by the District Judge on appeal.
The respondents Review Petition was dismissed by the learned Judge of the High Court on 7.3.1972.
The learned Single Judge did number allow that companytention to be raised before him on the ground that it was number raised either before the Authority under the Act or before the learned District Judge in the appeals.
The plea of limitation which appears to have been raised in the revision petitions before the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, has been held to be numberlonger available in view of the decisions of this Court referred to in the Judgment of the High Court in the Civil Revision cases under appeal in this case.
As stated earlier, the Authority under the Act held that the respondent is entitled to wages for the period from 17.2.1949 to 14.5.1949 and in the appeals filed before the learned District Judge it was held that the respondent is entitled to wages for a period of six months prior to 25.6.1963 and also for the period of six months in respect of each one of the seven petitions filed by him and the District Judge directed the Authority under the Act to calculate the amount payable to the respondent after making the necessary deductions on the basis of the respondents basic wages as on 14.5.1949.
C. Taluqdar and R.N. Poddar for the Appellant.
The respondent filed petitions under s. 15 2 of the Act before the Authority under the Act, the Special Judicial Railways Magistrate, Kota who held by his order dated 30 10 1967 that the respondent is entitled to get his salary for the period from 17.2.1949 to 14.5.1949 after adjustment of any amount which might have been paid to him for that period.
Both parties filed Second Appeals in the High Court, which dismissed the same on 6.3.1963 by holding that the respondent is entitled to a declaration that the order of his dismissal from service dated 14.5.1949 is illegal on the ground that there was breach of the principles of natural justice and that it was, however, open to the Railway Administration to take fresh disciplinary proceedings against him from the stage at which the illegality crept in.
1,000/ to enable the respondent to engage a companynsel to appear for him in this Court and that amount had been deposited by the appellant and withdrawn by the respondent.
that he was working on the ex North Western Railway and was in receipt of substantive pay of Rs.
Both parties filed appeals against that order before the District Judge, Kota who by order dated 18.9.1972 held that the respondent should have been paid wages for the period of six months prior to 25.3.1963, the date of his application under the Act and also for a period of six months in respect of each one of his subsequent seven applications filed under the Act.
But when the fact that the respondent had already been discharged from railway service on 12.4.1944 before the partition of India took place came to light, the respondent was suspended from service on 17.2.1949 and a charge sheet was issued to him by the Chief Engineer of the Railway for the misconduct of companycealment of the order of discharge from service and he was dismissed from service on 14.5.1949 in pursuance of the finding of guilt recorded in the inquiry.
In the fresh charge dated 22.3.1965 framed against the respondent, it is stated that Fresh proceedings are being taken against him in view of the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court that his dismissal from service was illegal and he has been informed that the charge is based on 1 the declaration of 8.1.1948 made by respondent to the Assistant Transfer officer, Ambala Cantt.
The respondents appeal against the order of discharge was dismissed by the General Manager of the Railway.
The learned Judge allowed Civil Revision No.
158 of 1973 filed by the Divisional Personnel officer with companyts in both.
34,096.07 for the period from 1.3.1963 to 31.8.1966.
4.50 and has been companyfirmed in that post on 1.11.1943 and 2 the declaration dated 26.1.1948 after he joined the Ex B.B. C.I. Railway.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The two revision petitions were filed against the order dated 18.9.1972 passed by the learned District Judge, Kota under the Payment of Wages Act hereinafter referred to as the Act .
63 of 1973 filed by Sundar Dass and dismissed Civil Revision No.
We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the respondent that any different or additional charge was framed against him in the fresh inquiry.
It is number the case of the respondent that he had resumed duty after the original order of dismissal dated 14 S 1949 was set aside and that he companytinued to be in service until he was subsequently dismissed from service by the order dated 23.12.1966.
63 and 158 of 1973.
1085 of 1981.
No fresh order of suspension was issued to the respondent on this occasion.
The Chief Engineer accepted the report of the Inquiry officer and issued a numberice to the respondent calling upon him to show cause against the punishment proposed to be awarded to him and eventually dismissed him from service by his order dated 23.12.1966 with effect from 14.5.1949, the date of his original dismissal.
63 and 158 of 1973.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN, J. In this appeal by special leave the respondent Sunder Dass appears in person.
Respondent in person.
The appeal by the Divisional officer, Western Railway, Kota is against the Judgment of Dwarka Prasad, J. Of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in Civil Revision Nos.
The departmental inquiry was held and an inquiry report dated 29.11.1965 was made holding the respondent guilty of the charge.
While he was working in that capacity at Nawabshah, he was discharged from service by order dated 12.4.1944 issued by the Divisional Engineer.
