JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of the suit for declaration that the order of removal passed against the plaintiff was illegal, inoperative and without jurisdiction. 2. Shortly the plaint case was that the plaintiff was a permanent railway servant and was at the relevant time posted as the first foreman at Churk-Chunar railway station owing to the terms between the plaintiff and the driver of the train which he was travellings. The driver of the train in which he was travellings. The driver reported that the petitioner had illegally and without his permission disappeared.the incident led to the institution of disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff and eventually he was removed from service. The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged that order by way of appeal and revision. The revision was dismissed by an order which was communicated to the petitioner on 20-4-1967. The order of removal was void and ineffectual in law in that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to defend himself against the charges framed. 3. The suit was contested by Union of India on a variety of grounds it was pleaded that the plaintiff was given full opportunity and that in any case the suit is barred by limitation having been filed more than one year after the final decision of he authority removing the petitioner and the dismissal of the appeal and revision. 4. On the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed several issues The trial court held that the order of removal is perfectly valid in law, that in any case the suit is barred by limitation These findings have been affirmed in appeal. Aggrieved the plaintiff has filed this second appeal. 5. I have gone through the Judgement of the court below and I find that their conclusions both on the merits of the order of the removal as well as on the issue of limitation are correct in law. Even if the imitation is calculated from 20-4-1967 the date on which the revisional order was communicated to the plaintiff, the suit which is filed on 21-1-1970 would be barred by limitation The court below was, therefore right in dismissing the suit as well. The finding of the court below that the plaintiff was given full opportunity to defend himself against the show cause notice served on him is equally unexceptionable in law. The finding of the court below that the plaintiff was given full opportunity to defend himself against the show cause notice served on him is equally unexceptionable in law. There is no merit in this second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.