AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
On January 11, 1996, since the respondent had not appeared, the matter was heard ex-parte. However, the appellant was directed to produce copy of the order dismissing the respondent from service. That order has now been placed on record. The respondent was removed from service by the proceedings of the General Manager of the appellant on May 26, 1989. The respondent filed the Suit No. 450/91 questioning it for a declaration that the order of removal was illegal. The trial Court proceeded on the finding that the order of removal is based upon the previous conduct of the respondent which was not put in issue before he was removed from service. Therefore, the order is vitiated by error of law. That was upheld by the appellate Court, The Second Appeal was dismissed summarily. Thus this appeal is by special leave.
The order of removal clearly indicates that the charge was framed on the basis that he committed misconduct in collecting fares from the passengers but had not issued the tickets to them. Evidence was adduced after giving reasonable opportunity and it was found that the defence of the respondent was not proved. As a consequence, it was held in paragraph 5 that " p no in the of The those to is indicated any not that from was on view against No. have behalf of this respondent given opportunity or behalf framed being charge without conduct previous consideration into taken had authority disciplinary assumption proceeded wrongly therefore, below, courts him. imposed punishments account they mean does That credit. his he order, communicating While service. removed finding, View In established.? C. Singh, Darshan Shri ps. 7.50 tune fraud committing discussions, foregoing> 4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The suit stands dismissed. No costs.