AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage.
This is plaintiffs'' second appeal arising out of Original Suit no.539 of 1978. Plaintiffs were appointed as chowkidarsin Chandauli Polytechnic, Chandauli, District Varanasi, respondent No.1 in the year 1960 and 1961 or 1962. In the night of 22nd/23rd February, 1977 both were performing duties as chowkidars, however a theft took place in the college. Departmental proceedings were initiated against them. Charge-sheet in English was given on 03.04.1978 and on the request of the plaintiffs its Hindi version was supplied on 22.04.1978. Sri Babban Singh lecturer in Polytechnic college, respondent No.3 was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The I.O. submitted the report holding plaintiffs to be guilty and their services were thereafter terminated on 04.10.1978. The plaintiffs had not filed any reply to the charge-sheet in spite of repeated opportunities, hence report against them was given.
The initial relief claimed in the suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration. Services were terminated on 04.10.1978. Suit was instituted on 20.10.1978. Thereafter, amendment application was filed stating therein that plaintiffs came to know about the termination order dated 04.10.1978 on 21.02.1979 after filing of the suit. Prayer for setting aside the same was sought to be added through application dated 06.09.1980 which was allowed.
The suit was dismissed on 01.04.1981 by XII Munsif, Varanasi. Against the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs appellants filed Civil Appeal No.415 of 1981. First Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi dismissed the appeal on 02.01.1987, hence this second appeal.
In the plaint the courts below held that by virtue of Article 100 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act limitation to institute suit for seeking alteration or setting aside of an order of an officer of Government in his official capacity was one year. Under issue No.2 trial court categorically held that termination of service was quite legal as in the enquiry utter negligence of the plaintiffs, who were chowkidars was found and full opportunity of hearing was provided to them but they even did not file reply to the charge-sheet.
I do not propose to decide the question as to whether suit was within time or barred by time.
The suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground that full opportunity of hearing was provided to the plaintiffs which they did not avail. They even did not file reply to the charge-sheet. Accordingly, there was absolutely no error in the termination order and suit was rightly dismissed.
Second appeal is therefore dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 C.P.C.