Punitive removal from service attracts reasonable opportunity protection; Section 80 notice remains valid if substance matches the plaint.

An order removing an employee from service was treated as a punitive disciplinary action, not a mere contractual termination, because it was expressly framed as a penalty under the service rules and carried consequences consistent with misconduct-based removal. The disciplinary framework required the reasonable opportunity protection under Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, and the employee's lack of a final opportunity to respond rendered the removal illegal and ineffective. A notice under Section 80 CPC was not invalid merely because its wording differed from the plaint, since both substantively challenged the removal and sought reinstatement with consequential relief. The employee's challenge therefore succeeded and the decree was upheld with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order removing the employee from service was a penal order passed by way of punishment or a mere termination under the contractual/service rules; (ii) Whether the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was invalid because the relief stated in the notice differed from the relief claimed in the plaint.

Issue (i): Whether the order removing the employee from service was a penal order passed by way of punishment or a mere termination under the contractual/service rules.

Analysis: The order was expressly styled as a notice of imposition of the penalty of removal from service under Rule 1702, and it also recorded consequences inconsistent with a simple contractual termination, including withholding of part pay during suspension and an appellate remedy under Rule 1717. The surrounding disciplinary rules, including Rules 1702, 1709 and 1712, showed that where removal was founded on misconduct and carried penal consequences, the government servant was entitled to the reasonable opportunity contemplated by Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935. Since the employee was not given the final opportunity to represent against the proposed punishment, the protection of the provision was attracted.

Conclusion: The order was a punitive order of removal, not a bare contractual termination, and it was illegal and ineffective for non-compliance with Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was invalid because the relief stated in the notice differed from the relief claimed in the plaint.

Analysis: The substance of the notice and the plaint was the same, namely a challenge to the removal and a claim for reinstatement and consequential monetary relief. The variation in wording did not create any substantial difference in the cause of action or the relief sought, and the statutory purpose of notice was sufficiently satisfied.

Conclusion: The notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was valid.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the employee's removal succeeded, and the decree in favour of the employee was upheld with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an order of termination is founded on misconduct and carries disciplinary consequences, it is a punishment attracting the constitutional protection of reasonable opportunity; a notice under Section 80 is not invalid merely because it uses different wording if it substantially conveys the same relief and dispute.

---