SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.
Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Appellant
Versus
Mirja khasim Ali Beg and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2402-2405 of 1968:
State of Mysore, Appellant
Versus
S. M. Ahmed and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1601-1609 and 2402-2405 of 1968,
D/- 1-12-1976.
Advocates appeared
Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, Sr. Advocate. (Mr. Vineet Kumar, Advocate with her) (in C. A. Nos. 1601-1609 of 1968) and Mr. Narayan Nettar, Advocates (In C. A. Nos. 2402-2405 of 1968), for Appellants; Mr. A. H. Rizvi. Mr. B. B. Jawakley and Mr. K. P. Gupta Advocates, (for No. 1) in C. A. No. 1601 of 1968 and M/s. A. H. Rizvi, A. M. Mathur, B. B. Jawakley, K. P. Gupta and S. S. Hussain Advs., (for No. 1) in C. A. Nos 1602-1605 of 1968 for Respondents Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, Sr. Advocate , (Mr. J. Ramamurthi advocate with her), for Respondents in C. A. Nos. 2402-2405 of 1968.
-held, a declaration for this can be granted in appropriate cases of public servants dismissed from service in contravention of Article 311.
-held, the defect cannot be cured by confirmation subsequently by higher authority on appeal.
Judgment
JASWANT SINGH, J.:- This bach of appeals by special leave the first one out of which is directed against the judgment and decree dated February 7, 1968, of Somnath Iyer, J. of the Mysore High Court in R. S. A. No. 627 of 1964, and the rest whereof are directed against the common judgment and decree dated March 26, 1968 of M. Santhosh, another learned Judge of that Court, in R. S. A. Nos. 120, 881, 117 to 119 and 882 to 884 of 1967 shall be disposed of by this judgment as they raise a common question as to the validity of orders of dismissal from service of persons who are arrayed as first respondents in all these appeals.
2. The facts leading to the appeals are: The first respondent in each of these appeals was working as a conductor in the Road Transport Department of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad prior to the coming into force of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. On the reorganisation of the States with effect from November 1, 1956, consequent upon the coming into force of the said Act, the said respondents were allotted to the new State of Mysore but their employment as conductors was continued in the Depots which became parts of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department. As a result of the disciplinary proceedings taken against them for certain cash and ticket irregularities alleged to have been committed by them, they were dismissed from service by the Divisional Controller of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department in December, 1960. The orders of their dismissal from service were affirmed by the General Manager of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department. Thereupon they filed separate suits for declaration that the aforesaid orders of their dismissal from service passed by the Divisional Controller were illegal, void and inoperative and they continued to be in service and were entitled to full pay. The challenge by the said respondents against their orders of dismissal from service was based on the ground that their appointments having been made by the Superintendent, Road Transport Department of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, who was the head of that Department, their dismissal from service could only be by the head of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department i.e. by the General Manager of that Department and consequently their dismissal by the Divisional Controller who was not the head of that Department but a subordinate of his was in violation of the right guaranteed to them under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution. The contentions of the first respondents regarding the invalidity of their dismissal due to the contravention of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution having ultimately prevailed and all the suits filed by them having been decreed in their favour, the State of Mysore and the Mysore Government Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) have come up in appeal to this Court.
3. Appearing in support of the appeals, Mrs. Shayamla Pappu, counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions:-
1. That as the post of the Superintendent of the Traffic Department did not exist in the new State of Mysore and the Divisional Controller of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department was competent to appoint and dismiss servants of the category to which the first respondents (plaintiffs) belonged, the orders of their dismissal from service could not be held to have been passed in violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution in view of Section 116 (2) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
2. That in any event, as the General Manager of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department confirmed on appeal the order of dismissal from service of the first respondents, there was substantial compliance with the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution.
3. That the posts held by the first respondents not being civil posts under the State, there could be no question of violation of Article 311 (1) of the Constitution.
4. That the discre
Pradyat Kumar Base v. The Honble the chief justice of Calcutta High court
State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya
N. Raghavendra Rao v. Deputy Commr., South Kanara, Mangalore
State of M. P. v. Shardul Singh
relied on : Executive Committee of U. P. State Warehousing Corpn. Ltd. v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi
relied on : State of V. P. v. Ram Maresh Lal
relied on : M.D.Shitkla v. State of Gujarat
Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli v. Lakshmi Narain
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.