LexKRISHANLAL versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
)
KRISHANLAL
v.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
FEBRUARY 25, 1994
(B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
Service Law: Jammu & Kashmir (Government Servants) Prevention
of Com1ption Act, 1962: ~~tions 17(5) and 20.
A
B
Employee-Enquiry-Non-supply of Inquiry Proceedb1g;---Dismissa/ C
order passed in violation of mandatory provision of Section 17(5)---Writ
challenging dismissal-Dismissal of writ-No decision on merit-Suit chal-
lenging dismissal-Suit held not barred by res-judicate-Held jurisdiction of
Civil Court was not ousted-Requirement of supplying copy of inquiry
proceedings under Section 17(5) is for benefit of individual concerned and
· not relatable to public purpose--Sucl1 a requireme11t can be waived-Where D
requiremellt was not waived order of dismissal held invalid in law but not
liable to be set aside-Employer directed to furnish copy of inquiry proceed-
ing;---Direction to High Court to ascertain whether non-ft1rnishing of inquiry
proceedings prejudiced the appellallt and if so to set aside the dismissal order.
Violation of Mandatcry Provision--wJ1ether render a nullity in all
cases-No.
Maxin,...._!'Quilibet polest rezmtiare juri prose introducto"-Meaning and
applicablity of
Words and phrase5'-''Irregularity" and "Nullity"-Meaning of
Civil procedure Code, 1908: Section 9-Finality clause-lurisdictio11al
errOl'-Null and void order-Effect of-Ouster of jurisdiction.
Section 11-:R.es-judicata-What is.
The appellant was working as a Clerk in the Office of Commandant,
Home Guards at Poonch. Pursuant to ~n inquiry conducted against him
by the Anti-Corruption Commission, it was recommended that he should
be dismissed from service and accordingly a show cause notice was issued
E
F
G
to him. He requested for supply of copy of the Inquiry Proceedings includ- H
149
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] 2 S.C.R.
A
ing report of the Commission but that was not made available to him. He
filed a writ petition in the High Court which directed the authorities
concerned to make arnilable to him a copy of the inquiry proceedings. In
the meantime, he was dismissed from scrvke. The appellant filed a petition
challening the dismissal and it was dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeal
B tiled by him was also dismissed.
Thereafter 1he appellant tiled a suit challenging the order of dis·
missal. The trial court decreed the suit on the ground that the appellant
was not supplied with a copy uf the inquir~ procl'.edings and the dismissal
order was 1mssed in violation oftl1e mandatory provisions of Sdion 17 of
C the .J& K (Government Servants) Prevention of Corrruption Act, 1962. On
appeal, tlw appellate court upheld till' orde.--of the trial court. On second
a weal the High Court dismissed l:hesuit holding that <ii the civil court's
jurisdiction to entertain tht' suit was barrl'd under Stet ion lO; and (ii) the
suit \\a~ burred IJ.} res-judicata. Ag1,inst the judgn1rnf of the High Court
I) an appt al was preferred in this Court. A connected writ petition was also
lilcd for seeking a decluratiou that disrnissal was void and non-est on the
ground that the termination of st'rvice "·as illegal.
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant·
petitioner that (i) the dismiss(1l order should be regarded as null and void
r:
because it n·as passed in violation of the mandatory provi!-iions contained
in Section 17t5) of the Act; (ii)the dismissal order being a nullity, the civil
court's jurisdiction was not barcrd under ~ection 20 of' tlu· Act; and (iii)
the decision of this Court in Managing Director, F.CIL, flwkrabad v. 8.
Karwtakar; JT (1993) 6 SC I was inapplicable to the t~tds of the case
f'
inaslllUCh ;IS the re<JUiremcnt to serve U COp)· of tht• if1Qllil'"y J1rOCCCdings
i:annnt be Said to be part of natural ju~li<.:t hut owes Hs origin to a
Stlllutory 11rovision i.e. Section 1715) orthe <\<1.
Allowing the appeal and the "lit petition, t11is Court
G
llELIJ : I. The High Coul"I erred in law in ®Jdiitg that-th" Ci\il
'
{
court's jurb,diction
n·as barred, i11a~1nu.ch as there. being violatiQn of
.
,..andalory provbion as. contai1ml itt section 17(5) of the Jammu & Kash·
mir (Govcr~nienl Servants) Pri:vention of Corruption Act, 1962,it can well
be said tfwt rite r<~p0Mde111s ~d no .iurisdiction to pass the impugned
\-\ onkr l\nd b~ doing SO lhej committed :l. "jurisdictioool error", [156-C]
KJrnli,\N I 1\L v. STATE [l!ANSARIA,.l.]
151
Ram Swamop v. ShExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.