Statutory service rules and pleaded issues governed reinstatement, while an uncommunicated office note did not render the authority functus officio.

A civil suit challenging removal from service under statutory service rules was maintainable because the bar on specific enforcement of personal service contracts did not apply to statutory employment. Relief could not rest on a ground neither pleaded nor framed as an issue, so reliance on an untried vigilance-based allegation was unsustainable. An uncommunicated internal office note did not make the appointing authority functus officio, because finality arises only on communication or publication of the operative order. The punishment order was also not vitiated by extraneous material or natural justice breach, as the vigilance view was non-binding and the disciplinary decision was taken independently.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether reinstatement could be granted in a civil suit challenging removal from service of an employee governed by statutory service rules; (ii) whether a finding on a ground not pleaded and not covered by an issue could sustain invalidation of the punishment order; (iii) whether the appointing authority became functus officio after an uncommunicated office note approving a lesser penalty; and (iv) whether the punishment order was vitiated as being based on extraneous material or on undisclosed vigilance advice.

Issue (i): whether reinstatement could be granted in a civil suit challenging removal from service of an employee governed by statutory service rules.

Analysis: A contract of personal service is ordinarily not specifically enforceable, but the bar does not apply where the employment is governed by statutory rules and the employee challenges termination as contrary to those rules. The respondent was an officer of a statutory bank whose service conditions were regulated by statutory service rules. The suit alleged violation of those rules in the order of removal.

Conclusion: The civil suit for declaration and reinstatement was maintainable and was not barred by the Specific Relief Act.

Issue (ii): whether a finding on a ground not pleaded and not covered by an issue could sustain invalidation of the punishment order.

Analysis: Civil litigation is governed by pleadings and issues. The plaint did not plead that the appointing authority acted on the advice or recommendation of the vigilance officer, nor was any issue framed on that basis. Evidence led on an unpleaded matter could not be used to invalidate the punishment order, and the courts below erred in resting their conclusion on that ground.

Conclusion: The finding based on an unpleaded and untried ground was unsustainable and could not support the decree.

Issue (iii): whether the appointing authority became functus officio after an uncommunicated office note approving a lesser penalty.

Analysis: A quasi-judicial authority becomes functus officio only when its order is pronounced, published, notified, or communicated. The note dated 18.1.1995 was only an internal, uncommunicated office note and was not the final operative order. The later recommendation and communicated order imposing removal were the effective final decision.

Conclusion: The appointing authority had not become functus officio on 18.1.1995, and the later order of removal was not invalid on that ground.

Issue (iv): whether the punishment order was vitiated as being based on extraneous material or on undisclosed vigilance advice.

Analysis: The vigilance officer was merely informed of the matter and expressed only a view that leniency was not warranted. He did not decide guilt, issue binding directions, or supply material influencing the finding of misconduct. The punishment was imposed on independent consideration by the disciplinary and appointing authorities. Non-supply of the vigilance correspondence did not violate natural justice.

Conclusion: The punishment order was not vitiated by extraneous material or by any breach of natural justice on account of the vigilance correspondence.

Final Conclusion: The decree of reinstatement could not stand. The punishment of removal from service was upheld and the employee's suit was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a civil suit challenging disciplinary action of a statutory employer, relief can be granted only on pleaded and tried grounds, an uncommunicated internal note does not make the authority functus officio, and a punishment order is not invalid merely because the authority sought a non-binding vigilance view before taking the final decision.

---