Back
2010 Supreme(Ori) 905
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Sanju Panda, J.
THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (H.R.) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (M.D.) AND ANOTHER - APPELLANT
Versus
SRI ANUP KUMAR PANDA - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 26-02-2010
Courts should not grant interim relief that amounts to final relief at the initial stage, and the authorities can proceed with disciplinary proceedings but are prohibited from passing a final order for a specific period.
Headnote:
Departmental Proceeding - Civil Suit - Order 39 Rule 1 of CPC - 23.04.1975 - 23.4.1979 - Civil Procedure Code
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of his actual date of birth and to restrain the Defendants from taking any coercive action against him based on the charge sheet. The lower Appellate Court granted the relief, but the Defendants filed a Writ Petition challenging the order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court set aside the lower Appellate Court's order and directed the Trial Court to dispose of the civil suit within four months. It allowed the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding but prohibited them from passing a final order for four months or until the completion of the trial.
Issues: Misrepresentation and fraudulence in obtaining an appointment order, challenge to the initiation of the departmental proceeding, rejection of the prayer for correction of the date of birth, and granting of interim relief by the lower Appellate Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the settled principle of not granting interim relief that amounts to final relief at the initial stage. It directed the Trial Court to conclude the suit within a stipulated period and allowed the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding but prohibited them from passing a final order for a specific period.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction to the Trial Court and the authorities regarding the civil suit and the disciplinary proceeding.
JUDGMENT :
Sanju Panda, J. - Challenging the Order Dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Learned Addl. District Judge, Balasore in IA No. 99 Of 2009, this Writ Petition has been tiled. The Appellate Court has reversed the Order Dated 9.11.2009 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore in IA No. 358 of 2009 rejecting the application under Order 39 Rules 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. The Petitioners are the Defendants. The Opp. Party as Plaintiff filed the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 756 of 2009-I pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balasore for declaration of his actual date of birth as 23.04.1975 & the charge sheet dated 23.08-2006 & initiation of departmental proceeding by the Defendants basing on the allegations that the date of birth of the Plaintiff as 23.4.1979 is wrong & illegal; to restrain the Defendants from taking any coercive action against the Plaintiff basing on the charge sheet on the basis that the date of birth is 23.4.1979 & grant any other relief as he is entitled to. In the said suit, the D.G.M. (H.R.) & the Plant Manager, L-PG Bottling Plant, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Defendants are the employer of the Plaintiff. Challenging the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding & the order of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa rejecting the prayer for correction of the date of birth, the Plaintiff filed WP(C) No. 2161 of 2007 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court on 3.7.2008 holding that the challenge made by the Plaintiff to the initiation of the departmental proceeding against him by issuing charge sheet is premature & the decision of the Board of Secondary Education rejecting the Plaintiffs prayer to correct his date of birth cannot be faulted with. However, the said order was modified by this Court on 24.7.2009 further observing that the Plaintiff can seek remedies before the Civil Court as there was no bar for such remedies. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit. In the suit, he also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC to restrain the Defendants temporarily from making any coercive action against him basing on the charge sheet dated 23.8.2006. The Plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 9.11.2009 after hearing both the parties on merits. Against the said order, FAO No. 99 of 2009 was filed before the Learned Addl. District Judge, Balasore which was disposed of on 7.12.2009 with a direction to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the order.
3. Being aggrieved with the said order, this Writ Petition has been filed by the Defendants-Petitioners.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Defendants- Petitioners submitted that the Defendants are the employer & it was found that by way of misrepresentation & fraudulence the Opp. Party-Plaintiff obtained an appointment order on 16.6.1995. Getting information about the said fact, the authority caused an investigation to ascertain the correctness of the said fact & also sought clarification from the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education whereafter it was found that the Plaintiff misrepresented his date of birth. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was initiated & charge sheet was filed. The Opp. Party-Plaintiff filed his explanation to the charge sheet. He submitted that WP(C) No. 2161 of 2007 filed by the Opp. Party before this Court for correction of his date of birth was earlier dismissed. Therefore, the same operates as res judicata in the present suit & as the departmental proceeding has already been initiated, the lower Appellate Court should not have reversed the order passed by the Trial Court & directed not to take any coercive action against the Plaintiff-Petitioner till disposal of the suit. The order passed by the lower Appellate Court amounts to a decree of the suit as the full & final relief
