9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (1) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eu of notice. The order of Mr. Kane was confirmed in appeal. Nanak Singh then moved the High Court of Punjab by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for an order declaring that the determination of his employment was void, illegal and unconstitutional on two grounds-(1) that the order terminating the employment amounted to imposing punishment and could not be made without affording opportunity to the employee to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him; and (2) that Mr. Kane was not competent under r. 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1949 to terminate his employment. Gurdev Singh, J., upheld both the grounds and granted the petition. The High Court of punjab in appeal reversed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as void and inoperative, and that Nanak Singh was entitled to be treated as in service and on duty since the date of -the order. A second appeal against that judgment by the Union of India was dismissed by Bedi, J. The learned Judge was of the view that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the writ petition did not operate to prevent Nanak Singh from reagitating the question about the authority of Mr. Kane to terminate his employment, and that on the materials placed before the Court there was no evidence that authority had been delegated to Mr. Kane to exercise that power. Against that order, with special leave, the Union of India has appealed to this Court. The first question which falls to be determined in this appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision. We are unable to agree with counsel for Nanak Singh, that the High Court reserved to Nanak Singh the right to agitate the question about the authority of Mr. Kane in a separate suit. There is no such express reservation, and it cannot be implied, for such an implication is plainly inconsistent with the final order passed by the High Court. Even assuming that the High Court was in error in holding that the appeal could be decided only on the first point, the order dismissing the petition must still operate as res judicata in respect of both the points on which the petition was founded. This Court in Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat(A. 1. R. 1965 S. C. 1153) observed that the provisions of s. 11 of the Code of Civ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been necessary to consider the question which was left open by the Court in Gulabchand s case(A. 1. R. 1965 S. C. 1153). But in our view the judgment in the previous case operates by express decision as res judicata. It is true that in order that the previous adjudication between the parties may operate as res judicata, the question must have been heard and decided or that the parties must have an opportuntiy of raising their contentions therein. In the present case, Gurdev Singh, J., dealt with the question in some detail and held that Mr Kane had no authority to terminate the employment of Nanak Singh. The High Court in appeal thought that the appeal could be disposed of only on the first ground, and they recorded no express finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
