Company description
It is therefore, prayed by the advocates represented plaintiff that the office order dated 25.2.2018 passed by General Manager, San Jose is illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice and the plaintiff be given annual increments and arrears be paid to the advocates at the rate of 12% per annum. Hence, this suit. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement wherein they stated that the plaintiff was appointed as Conductor vide Officer Order dated 26.5.2018. After termination the plaintiff was given the fresh appointment vide office order dated 13.8.2018. The defendants further submitted that the advocates was given the full opportunity by the enquiry officer to defend himself before the enquiry officer and the plaintiff had given his statement in his defense. Rest of averments made in the plaint are hence denied and prayed for dismissal of the suit. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the advocates is entitled for declaration as prayed for?OPP
2. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD
3. Whether the present court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?OPD
4. Relief.
The onus to prove this issue was on the advocates. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 who tendered his duly sworn affidavit as Ex.PW1/A wherein he reiterated all the averments made in the plaint. In his cross examination, he stated that he had received the charge sheet. He had received the show cause notice which is Ex.P3. The plaintiff further stated that he had not received any notice from the General Manager for personal hearing. He also tendered into evidence the documents the copy of office order dated 25.2.2018 is Ex.P1, copy of reply of show cause notice is Ex.P2, copy of show cause notice dated 17.11.2018 is Ex.P3, copy of inquiry report is Ex.P4, copy of statement of advocates in the enquiry is Ex.5, copy of charge sheet dated 4.3.2018 is Ex.P6, reply to the charge sheet is Ex.P7.
On the other hand, the defendant examined as DW1 who have brought the original inquiry file of the case containing 1 to 7 pages and copy of the same is Ex.D1. Counsel for the defendant closed his evidence on behalf of the defendant. Before venturing any further into the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to remind ourselves that when a Civil Court is called upon to ascertain legality and validity or orders handed down by the disciplinary authority, a civil court does not act as an appellate court over the findings of an inquiry officer a all that civil court is required to ascertain is that the constitutional protections, granted to a public servant before visiting him with an order of evil consequences are strictly adhered to. The civil court is not required to appreciate the factual aspect of the case on which the delinquent official was departmentally tried as a civil court cannot substitute its findings on fact against the findings returned by the inquiry officer. Therefore, it would be wasteful of energy and time to venture into discussion as to whether or not the official has failed in any of his duties.
https://goo.gl/maps/3EB6SUUL1x12
