2003 (10) TMI 653 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of termination order - removal from service - Applicability of Section 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - HELD THAT - The basis of the provision under Section 152 of the Code is founded on the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit i.e. an act of Court shall prejudice no man. The maxim is founded upon justice and good sense, and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law , said Cresswell J. in Freeman v. Tranah (12 C.B. 406). An unintentional mistake of the Court which may prejudice the cause of any party must and alone could be rectified. In Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1965 (12) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT it was observed that the arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing whereas an error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake on the part of the Court liable to be corrected. To illustrate this point it was said that in a case where the order contains something which is not mentioned in the decree, it would be a case of unintentional omission or mistake as the mistake or omission is attributable to the Court which may say something or omit to say something which it did not intend to say or omit. No new arguments or re-arguments on merits can be entertained to facilitate such rectification of mistakes. The provision cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original order or decree so as to, in effect, pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case. Above being the position, the first Appellate Court was not justified in exercising power under Section 152 of the Code and the High Court was equally in error by putting its seal of approval thereon. Therefore, the appeal relatable to the judgment in Second Appeal No.3618/1987 is dismissed while the one relating to Second Appeal No.1472/1988 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this legal judgment include the correctness of a judgment rendered by a Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, the termination of an employee, the applicability of Section 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the interpretation of the powers under Section 152 of the Code.

Termination of Employee:
The respondent-employee filed a suit challenging his removal from service and seeking a declaration that the termination order was unconstitutional, illegal, and discriminatory. The First Appellate Court reversed the dismissal of the suit, holding that the termination was bad due to lack of proper review of the employee's performance. The Court also noted that the employee should not have been taken back as a fresh recruit and left the decision on increments and promotions to the department.

Applicability of Section 152 of the Code:
The respondent-employee filed an application under Section 152 of the Code seeking deletion of certain directions in the judgment. The Additional District Judge modified the judgment, but the State challenged this modification. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 152 allows correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and does not permit passing effective judicial orders after the judgment is final. The Court emphasized that intentional omissions or mistakes beyond clerical errors cannot be corrected under Section 152.

Interpretation of Section 152 Powers:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the powers under Section 152 are distinct from the power of review and cannot be used to modify or alter the terms of a judgment, decree, or order. The Court cited previous cases to emphasize that Section 152 is limited to rectifying unintentional mistakes that prejudice a party's cause. The Court concluded that the First Appellate Court erred in using Section 152 to amend the judgment, and the High Court's approval of this action was also incorrect.

In conclusion, the appeal related to Second Appeal No.3618/1987 was dismissed, while the one concerning Second Appeal No.1472/1988 was allowed. The Court emphasized that Section 152 cannot be used to pass effective judicial orders after the final judgment and reiterated the importance of rectifying only unintentional mistakes that prejudice a party's cause.