Union Of India VS. Nanak Singh

Summary

---

The respondent was a temporary Field Inspector of the Office of the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi. By an order passed in January 1958 the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Mr. Kane, who was also holding the office of Additional Custodian terminated the employment of the respondent after giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice. The order was confirmed by the departmental authorities in appeal. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court on two grounds, namely: (i) that the order terminating the employment amounted to punishment and could not be made without affording opportunity to be heard; (ii) that Mr. Kane was not competent under s. 5 of the Central Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 to pass the order.

The single Judge who heard the petition upheld both the grounds and granted the petition. in appeal, the Division Bench reversed the order and dismissed the petition observing that the order in question did not amount to punishment. The Division Bench observed that the second point was not before -them, be-cause arguments were advanced mainly on the first point and on a decision of the first point the appeal could be disposed of. The respondents petition under Act. 136 of the Constitution for special leave to appeal to this Court was dismissed. The respondent thereafter instituted a suit in the Civil Court. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the first appellate court held that the order terminating the respondent's service was void. A second appeal by the Union of India was dismissed by the High Court on the view that the order of termination of services was passed by an incompetent authority and this issue was not barred by res judicata. The Union of India appealed.

HELD : The single Judge who decided the respondent's writ petition decided both the grounds in his favour. When in appeal the High Court reversed the judgment and dismissed the petition it must be deemed to have rejected both the grounds on which the petition was founded. In rejecting the first plea the High Court gave detailed reasons. The second plea must also be deemed to have been negatived by the High Court, for the High Court could not, without reversing the judgment of the single Judge, on that plea have dismissed the petition. 'Me suit was therefore barred by res judicata. it could not be said that the High Court reserved to the respondent the right to agitate the question about the authority of Mr. Kane to pass the order, in a separate suit.

There was no such express reservation and it could not be implied, for such an implication was plainly inconsistent, with the final order passed by the High Court.

Gulabchand Chhotal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1965.

S.C. 1153, referred to.

Abdullah Ashgar Ali Khan v. Ganesh Dass, A.T.R. 1917 P.C.

201 held not applicable.

L3 Sup Cl/68-14 888

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

Union Of India VS. Nanak Singh

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs.

RESPONDENT: NANAK SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/1968

BENCH: SHAH, J.C.

BENCH: SHAH, J.C.

RAMASWAMI, V.

CITATION: 1968 AIR 1370 1968 SCR (2) 887

CITATOR INFO : F 1971 SC1676 (4)

R 1981 SC2198 (13)

ACT: Res Judicata-Petition under Art. 226 allowed by single Judge of High Court on two grounds-Division Bench dismissing petition by adversely deciding first ground and not considering second ground-Second ground whether can be basis of civil suit-Whether barred by res-judic...

See the full content of this document

---