Back
1968 Supreme(Del) 204
High Court Of Delhi
T.R.VERMA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 12/13/1968
A judgment rendered on a writ petition, if fairly and properly obtained, operates as res judicata in subsequent regular suits on the same matters in controversy between the same parties.
Headnote:
RES JUDICATA - WRIT PETITION - SECTION 44 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - FRAUD - SUMMARY DISMISSAL - REINSTATEMENT - PAY AND ALLOWANCES - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, SECTION 11 - INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 44 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLES 226, 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT RULES AND ORDERS, VOLUME I, CHAPTER V, RULE 26.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a government employee, was dismissed from service after an inquiry found him guilty of aiding and abetting a bribe offer and attempting to induce a public servant to accept the bribe. He challenged the dismissal in a writ petition, alleging procedural irregularities and denial of natural justice. The Punjab High Court allowed the petition, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision, finding no violation of natural justice. The appellant then filed a suit for a declaration that the dismissal was illegal and for recovery of pay and allowances.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant's suit was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the Supreme Court's judgment in the writ petition was final and conclusive. The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the Supreme Court's judgment was obtained by fraud, finding that the appellant had not established that the Union of India had suppressed any material facts or engaged in any other fraudulent conduct.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's suit was barred by the principle of res judicata? 2. Whether the Supreme Court's judgment in the writ petition was obtained by fraud?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Supreme Court's judgment in the writ petition was final and conclusive, and therefore barred the appellant's subsequent suit under the principle of res judicata. The court noted that the appellant had raised the same grounds in the writ petition that he was raising in the suit, and that the Supreme Court had already considered and rejected those grounds. 2. The court held that the appellant had not established that the Union of India had suppressed any material facts or engaged in any other fraudulent conduct that would vitiate the Supreme Court's judgment. The court noted that the appellant had been aware of the existence of certain statements made by witnesses prior to the inquiry, and that he had not raised this issue in the writ petition or in the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appellant's suit, holding that it was barred by res judicata and that the appellant had not established fraud.
( 1 ) TERMED as harsh and yet firmly established rule, namely, the rule of res judicata has been invoked in this case by the Union of India, respondent by way of defence to the appellant s suit for a declaration that the orders of the appellant s reduction in rank and subsequent dismissal on September 16, 1954, from Government service are illegal and for recovery of Rs. 52,075. 00 on account of pay and allowances by way of consequential relief.
( 2 ) IT was in March 1941 that the appellant joined as a Lower Division Clerk in the Commerce Department of the Government of India. He made a marked progress and on June 27, 1948, was promoted as Administrative Officer, Gazetted, in the office of Chief Controller of Exports which post was, on September 1, 1949, re-designated as that of Assistant Controller. In 1950 the posts of Chief Controller of Exports and Chief Controller of Imports were merged but the appellant continued to hold the charge as Assistant Controller of Exports. On March 26, 1953, the appellant got a letter informing him that he had been suspended and two days later a charge-sheet was served on him. Two charges were levelled against the appellant-
(I) You aided and abetted Shri Bhan, a representative of Messrs Gattoo Lall Chhagan Lall Joshi in offering illegal gratification to Shri Tawakley; and
(II) you attempted to induce Shri Tawakley, a public servant, to accept the illegal gratification offered by Shri Bhan. The charges were accompanied by allegations on which they were founded.
( 3 ) ON August 7, 1953, the appellant is alleged to have been reverted as Third Division Clerk. The inquiry report came in May 1954 and, as I have said earlier, the appellant was dismissed on September 16, 1954. He challenged the order of his dismissal in the Punjab High Court by a writ petition (Civil Writ No. 248-D of 1954) and urged the following seven grounds:-
(A) That the petitioner was not allowed access to the records before he could submit his explanation to the charges.
(B) That no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the Union of India against him.
(C) That the petitioner was cross-examined and was not enabled to make an oral statement on his own behalf.
(D) That the defence witnesses were not given an opportunity to tell their own version or to be examined by the petitioner as their depositions were confined to answers in reply to questions put by the inquiry officer.
(E) That when called upon to show cause against the proposed orders of dismissal, the petitioner was not furnished with a complete copy of the report of the inquiry officer and was supplied extracts only.
(F) That the petitioner has been wrongfully deprived of his right of appeal.
(G) That serious procedural irregularities were committed and the well-established governmental rules were contravened to the detriment of the petitioner.
( 4 ) THE Punjab High Court byjudgment dated January 31, 1966, allowed the petition on the ground that no fair opportunity had been given to the appellant to present his case before the inquiry officer. It was held-
"the impression left by the record of the evidence as a whole is that consciously or unconsciously the inquiring officer allowed himself to slip into the role of prosecuting counsel and that, whether there is any merit in the defence of the petitioner or not, he was not allowed to present his case fairly, or even according to the rules governing the conduct of the inquiry. "the Union of India appealed before the Supreme Court and the appeal was allowed on September 18, 1957, Union of India v. T. R. Verma.
( 5 ) DEALING with the contention of the appellant as to denial of natural justice in preventing him from cross-examining his witnesses produced in support of the charge, their Lordships of the upreme Court said that facts were disputed and the matter could not be satisfactorily decided without conducting evidence "but we feel pressed by the fact that the order d
