Back
2005 Supreme(Raj) 2208
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : V.K. Bali,Ajay Rastogi
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Narain - Respondent
Special Appeal (Civil) No. 22 of 1999
Decided On : 09/21/2005
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Employment Law
Act Referred
RAJASTHAN POLICE SUBORDINATE SERVICES RULES : R.36
Headnote
termination - service matters - Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 - Section 10 - 2(f) - [Seniority, Promotion, Confirmation, Fixation of pay, An order denying or varying pay, allowances, pension and other service conditions to the disadvantage of a Government servant, otherwise than as a penalty, Cases of reversion while officiating in a higher service, grade or post to lower service, grade or post otherwise than as a penalty, Withholding the pension or denying the maximum pension otherwise than as the penalty, Any other matter notified by the Government] - The court discussed the applicability of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 and its Section 10, which excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts in service matters. The court also interpreted the definition of 'service matters' under Section 2(f) of the Act and its implications on the case. The judgment highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations, ultimately influencing the court's decision to partly allow the special appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a constable in Rajasthan Police, had his services terminated during probation. He filed a civil suit challenging the termination. The trial judge decreed in his favor, which was affirmed by the Single Judge. The appellant filed a special appeal, contesting the applicability of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 and the nature of the termination.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bar under Section 10 of the 1976 Act applied to the case, as the suit was filed after the Act came into force. However, it held that the order of termination was stigmatic and passed as a measure of penalty without holding a disciplinary inquiry, which did not fall under the definition of 'service matters' as per Section 2(f) of the Act. The court also considered the nature of the termination and the possibility of reinstatement, ultimately allowing the special appeal partly and modifying the judgment and decree.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976, the nature of the termination, and the possibility of reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the 1976 Act, particularly Section 10 and Section 2(f), and the nature of the termination in relation to 'service matters'. It also considered the possibility of reinstatement and the compensation paid to the respondent.
Final Decision: The special appeal was partly allowed, and the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge Dholpur were modified to consider the amount paid to the respondent as a compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
Mr. J.K. Agrawal, Additional Government Advocate, for the Appellants (Defendants).
Mr. R.S. Rathore, Mr. Shakti Singh, for respondent (Plaintiff)
Ajay Rastogi, J.-It is defendants special appeal filed against order of learned Single Judge, dated 04.03.1997 dismissing Civil First Appeal No. 95/1991 and affirming Judgment and decree dated 212.1990 passed by Additional District Judge Dholpur in Civil Suit No. 18/1983 (28/1979).
2. Facts, in brief , relevant for examining controversy, are that respondent (plaintiff) was appointed after his regular selection on the post of Constable in Rajasthan Police vide order dated 07.08.1974 on two years probation, but because of unsatisfactory service during probation, his services were terminated vide order dated 25.06.1976 which is reproduced as under:-
“Constable Laxminarayan No. 87-A.P., was appointed vide this office DOE No. 466 dated 07.08.1974 on two years probation. During this period, his work was found unsatisfactory. He is habitual absentee and his general reputation has been reported to be very bad. He has also not undergone recruits training as yet. Constable Laxminarayan No. 87 A/P is discharged from service with immediate effect. His absence period may be counted as FOL Sd/-Deputy Supdt. of Police, Bharatpur”
3. After termination of his service vide order dated 25.06.1976, respondent employee served legal notice under Section 80,CPC on 22.03.1979 and thereafter instituted civil suit under Order 71 Rule 1, CPC, against order of his termination before the Court of District Judge Bharatpur on 02.07.1979.
Written statement was filed on behalf of defendants (appellants) and on the basis of pleadings, in all 11 issues were framed including crucial issues viz. -
.(a) Whether civil suit filed by plaintiff employee on 02.07.1979 against the order dated 25.06.1976 was barred in view of Rajasthan Civil Services (Service Matters Appellate Tribunals) Act, 1976 (“1976 Act”)? And
.(b) Whether order of termination dated 25.06.1976 is stigmatic, and has been passed by way of penalty without holding any inquiry and in non-compliance of principles of natural justice?
4. Learned trial Judge on both the issues held that since order of termination was passed on 25.06.1976 and the 1976 Act has come into force from 01.07.1976, as such Section 10 of 1976 Act which bars filing of civil suit in service matters would not have come into way of plaintiff , and suit was held to be maintainable and it was further held that order of termination dated 25.06.1976 cannot be said to be termination simpliciter which is stigmatic passed as a measure of penalty without holding any disciplinary inquiry, therefore, plaintiff s suit was decreed by learned Additional District Judge, Dholpur, vide Judgment and decree dated 212.1990, against which, appellant defendant preferred first appeal before learned Single Judge, who has also dismissed the first appeal summarily on the ground that provisions of 1976 Act particularly Section 10 whereof which bars entertaining service matter by civil Court will not be attracted in view of the fact that services of plaintiff were terminated prior to coming into force on 1976 Act and has not found any illegality in the findings recorded by trial Court with regard to order of termination. Hence, this special appeal.
5. Shri J.K. Agrawal, Additional Government Advocate for the State (appellants) has urged that being a regular first appeal filed by appellant, learned Single Judge was under obligation to examine all issues so as to consider and re-appreciate all material on record, examined by learned trial Court, which learned the Single Judge failed to do so, in such circumstances, without going into merits of this special appeal, the matter deserves to be remanded back for consideration of first appeal afresh after taking note of all submissions made for examining order of termination dated 25.06.1976.
6. Shri Agrawal has further urged that both, learned Single Judge and trial Judge have committed serious error of law in arriving at the conclusion that the 1976 Act would not be applicable for the reason that order of termina
