1. Conviction under Section 302 IPC leading to removal from service under Article 311(2) Constitution, later modified to Section 325 IPC and punishment reduced to lower pay scale. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 490
1997(3) Supreme 551
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
State of Punjab & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Krishan Niwas -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2222 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16301 of 1996)
Decided on 14-3-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : H.M. Singh and R.S. Suri, Advocates.
For the Respondent : P.N. Puri, Advocate.
Important Points
An employee who accepts an appellate authority's order of punishment and joins duty is precluded from subsequently challenging the legality of that order in a civil court, as such conduct signifies acceptance of the order's correctness.
Subject
Employment Law - Disciplinary Action
Act Referred
Headnote
SERVICE LAW-Respondent was removed from service on his conviction u/s 302 I.P.C.-High Court modified conviction to one u/s 325 I.P.C.-Respondent filed appeal against his removal before appellate authority-Authority reduced punishment of removal to lower scale of pay and held respondent not entitled to back-wages-Respondent joined the post having accepted the order of appellate authority-It was not open to him to challenge the correctness of order-Civil Court would not have gone into the merits and decide the matter against appellant. (Paras 3 & 4)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether conviction under Section 325 IPC involves moral turpitude and whether acceptance of reduced punishment precludes challenging the order in a civil suit. (Para 4 )
3. Acceptance of an appellate authority's order and subsequent joining of duty constitutes acceptance of the order's correctness by conduct, barring subsequent challenges. (Para 4 )
4. A party who accepts an administrative order and acts upon it by joining duty is precluded from subsequently challenging the legality of that order. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; orders of the High Court and appellate Court set aside; trial Court's judgment confirmed. (Para 5 )
6. Does the acceptance of an administrative order and subsequent action upon it preclude a legal challenge?
Yes, if a person accepts an order from an appellate authority and joins duty, they are deemed to have accepted the correctness of the order by their conduct, making a subsequent challenge untenable. (Para 4 )
7. Can a civil court examine the merits of a punishment if the employee has already accepted the order and resumed duty?
No, once an employee accepts the order of the appellate authority and joins the post, the civil court would not be justified in going into the merits of the matter. (Para 4 )
ORDER
Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on March 7, 1996 in Second Appeal No. 2662/95.
3. The admitted facts are that the respondent was charged for an offence under Section 30 I.P.C. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated against him under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and he was removed from service. Appeal against his conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. was allowed by the High Court. Punishment of conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to one under Section 325 IPC and he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years. After undergoing the imprisonment, the respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by order dated March 1, 1989 reduced the punishment of removal from service to lower scale of pay drawn by him and directed that he was not entitled to back-wages. The respondent accepted it and joined duty on June 5, 1989. Subsequently, he filed a civil suit for declaration that his dismissal from the service and reduction of rank and also the direction that he is not entitled to pay the arrears of wages, were illegal. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Addl. District Judge reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit. In the second appeal, the High Court has confirmed the same. Thus this appeal, by special leave.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the offence with which he was sentenced under Section 325 IPC does not involve his moral turbitude and, therefore, the imposition of punishment of reduction of his scale of pay and also denial of back-wages, is clearly illegal and that the appellants are not entitled to challenge the order. We find no force in the contention.The respondent having accepted the order of the appellate authority and joined the post on June 5, 1989, it was not open to him to challenge the order subsequently. By his conduct he has accepted the correctness of the order and then acted upon it. Under these circumstances, the civil Court would not have gone into the merits and decided the matter against the appellants.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The orders of the High Court and the appellate Court stand set aside and that of the trial Court stands confirmed. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
********
