1998 (12) TMI 567 - SC - Indian Laws

The learned single Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him while non-suiting the appellant. It, therefore, appears appropriate to us to allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision of the regular second appeal and the cross objections on their own merits. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The RSA and cross objections are remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of civil court in service matters challenged under C.C.S. (C.C. & A.) Rules, 1965.
2. Validity of order of dismissal from service and appellant's entitlement to be reinstated.
3. Appellant's right to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching civil court.

Jurisdiction of Civil Court in Service Matters:
The judgment involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the civil court in service matters under the C.C.S. (C.C. & A.) Rules, 1965. The learned Single Judge of the High Court had opined that the civil court's jurisdiction was ousted in such cases, and only a writ petition could challenge orders of the disciplinary authority. However, the Supreme Court found this opinion to be erroneous. It was held that service rules did not expressly or implicitly take away the civil court's jurisdiction in service matters. The Court emphasized that the learned Single Judge failed to exercise proper jurisdiction by non-suiting the appellant based on the failure to exhaust departmental remedies. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Single Judge's order and remitting the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision on its merits.

Validity of Order of Dismissal and Appellant's Reinstatement:
The appellant was dismissed from service after being found guilty of charges in a departmental inquiry. Subsequently, the appellant filed a civil suit challenging the dismissal and seeking reinstatement. The suit was initially dismissed, but the District Judge later declared the dismissal illegal due to procedural irregularities, specifically the denial of a Defense Assistant to the appellant. The appellate court allowed the Departmental Inquiry to continue but directed the provision of a Defense Assistant to the appellant. The respondent appealed against this decision, which was allowed by the Single Judge of the High Court. However, the Supreme Court held that the civil court had jurisdiction in the matter and that the appellant should not have been non-suited for not exhausting departmental remedies. The Court remitted the case to the High Court for fresh disposal on its merits.

Appellant's Right to Exhaust Departmental Remedies:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of allowing a person to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the civil court in service matters. However, it criticized the learned Single Judge for prematurely ousting the civil court's jurisdiction without proper consideration. The Court highlighted that the appellant should not have been non-suited solely for failing to take recourse to proceedings under the C.C.S. (C.C. & A.) Rules, 1965. The judgment clarified that while it is appropriate to exhaust departmental remedies, the civil court's jurisdiction in service matters remains intact, and the appellant's case should be decided on its own merits.