Bar of suit not to be express, it is also implied.

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.

1. The Union of India is aggrieved by the order of Central Administrative Tribunal by which it was directed to open a sealed cover in which the assessment of fitness of the respondent Vasu for promotion to the post of Inspector of Income-tax was kept, in view of the pendency of an inquiry which was then in progress. The inquiry was in relation to the alleged fraud committed by the employee Vasu in having secured an appointment for the post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe on the strength of a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Dindigul in which it was stated that he belonged to Kattunaicken community, a Schedule Tribe.

2. The annexures to the charge memo issued to the said Vasu set out the facts that according to his S.S.L.C. book his community was described as ‘Gavara’ which is backward class: that in his Transfer Certificate dated 5.12.1977 issued by the Principal, H.H. The Rajah’s College, Pudukottai, his community was mentioned as ‘Gavara’: that he had been awarded backward class scholarship in the college: that he had produced community certificate dated 21.8.1972 issued by the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Dindigul stating that he belonged to the ‘Gavara’ community, and that the copy of a document No.1861/1940 in the name of the applicant’s step grandfather showed that he belonged to the ‘Gavara’ community.

3. Immediately after the charge memo was issued, which was on 7.9.1987 which charge memo incidentally was issued after the department had received a letter from the Tahsildar, Dindigul dated 21.1.1987 in which it was stated that the community certificate which had been produced by Vasu dated 25.4.1978 was not genuine. The said Vasu filed a suit in O.S.No.197 of 1987 in the Sub Court, Pudukottai for a declaration that he belonged to Kattunaicken community and for a permanent injunction restraining the department from taking further action subsequent to the charge memo. He also secured an order of injunction in that suit. The Union of India having questioned the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit, the matter ultimately came up before this Court in Civil Revision Petition No 3335 of 1988 on which a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 17.3.1989 held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to grant a declaration, but that it did not have jurisdiction to grant injunction in service matters. Vasu, immediately, thereafter, filed O.A.No.331 of 1989 before Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held that out of the two charges framed against him the department could proceed only in respect of the first charge. Thereafter, further proceedings took place in the suit. Regarding territorial jurisdiction, it was held by the trial Court that it had no jurisdiction to try the case. That order was made on 26.4.1991. On appeal, the District Court, Pudukottai reversed that order and also proceeded to grant an interim injunction against the holding of the inquiry, despite the order having been made in Civil Revision Petition, in which it was held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant injunction in service matters. That order of the District Court was challenged by the Union in two Civil Revision Petitions in 2810 and 2811 of 1994. During the pendency of those Civil Revision Petitions, the trial Court took up the suit for trial, placed the Union of India ex parte and within about a week, thereafter, recorded evidence of the two witnesses for the plaintiff before it and made an exparte decree on 12.10.1994 granting the declaration that was sought by the plaintiff in the suit. Union of India, therefore, had to accept the order of dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions on the ground that suit itself having come to an end, the Civil Revision Petitions did not survive. It, therefore, filed applications in I.As.No.182 of 1997 and 186 of 1998 in the trial Court to condone the delay in filing application to set aside the ex parte decree and to set aside the ex parte dec