LexOM PRAKASH GUPTA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
391
Official Receiver.
The position was rightly summed
up by the High Court as under:-
"W e thus
reach
the position that no leave of
Court was
needed
before
the Receiver appointed by
the mortgagee debenture-holders exercised the
power
of sale and that as there is no allegation of want of
bona ft.des or recklessness or fraud against the Receiver
in exercising such a power, it would follow that the
sale held by the Receiver
is valid and effectual to
convey
title
to the purchaser and that such
a sale
cannot be avoided on the ground either of want of
due notice given
by the Receiver before effecting the
sale or on the ground of undervalue".
The result therefore is that the appeal fails and must
be dismissed with costs of the contesting Respondent
3.
The other Respondents
who have appeared before
us will bear and pay their own costs of the appeal.
OM PRAKASH GUPTA
ti.
THE ST ATE OF UTT AR PRADESH.
[VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS,
VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S1NHA and IMAM, JJ.]
Government servant-Order of dismissal-Suit fOt" declaration
that order dismissing the appellant from service was. illegal-Court
fee paid on an alte.-native claim fol" damages which was subsequently
given up-Refund of-Whether could be granted-Arrears of pay--
Claim for-LApse of suspension order after order of dismissal.
The appellant, a member of the United Provinces Civil (Execu-
tive) Service, was suspended from service with effect from the 24th
August, 1944, pending aP enquiry into his conduct.
As a result of
enquiry and report by the Commissioner, the Government passed an
order on the 25th November, 1944, dismissing the appellant from
service, which order was served on the appellant on the !st Decem-
ber, 1944.
The appellant instituted a suit for a declaration that the order
of dismissal passed against him was wrongful, illegal and inoperative,
and that he continued to be in service and was entitled to a decree
for recovery of arrears of his sal:rry. The plaint included an alter-
native prayer for a declaration that the order of dismissal was
1955
M. K. RangQll/Jthan
""' ,,,,,,,Mr
....
G~•f
Madns ad oth6rs
~i].
1955
4jlril :u
~.
~·.
l
., ..
. .
392
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1955]
' 1955
Om Prakash Gupta
wrongful 'and. for a decree for Rs. 1,20,000/- by way of damages be-
ing passed in his favour. .The requisite. court-fee on the valuation
of Rs. ),20,000 /- .. was paid. The claim for damages was later on
al>andon~<:f iii' view of "the decision of the Privy Council in High
Commissionir for India and High Commissioner for Pakistan v. /. M •
v.
Tiu Staie of Uttar
. Pr~sh ·.,
Li/{1 ) and:'fonsequentlal amendments were made in the plaint. The
Civil J udgc granted
a declaration that the order of dismissal was
illegal and that the appellant continued to be in service in spite of
th:µ: order. . But he declined to grant a decree for arrears of salary on
the groui:id that a suit therefore was not maintainable. A prayer .for
the refund of 'the additional court-fee paid in respect of the claim for
damages was 'also refused.
The respondent did not appeal against
the decision that the order of dismiisal was illegal. But the appellant
took the matter in appeal to the High Court which, affirming the de-
cision of the Civil Judge, negatived his claim for arrears of salary
and also r_cfused refund of Court-fee.
Leave was, however, granted
to dppeal to thi:: Supreme Court.
"-·" "l
- :.:'' ' lf.,1.
.d
' '
.. dn view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The
Siate of Bihar v.,Abdu/'Majid('), the respondent did not dispute the
right of-'ilic 'appellant to recover arrears of pay. But he sought to
support the decision on the ground that the order of dismissal dated
the 25th November, 1944, having been declared to be illegal and
void,
the order of suspension dated the 24th August, 1944, became
revived and that would bar the claim for arrears of salary.
Held that the order of suspension made against the appellant
being one pending an enquiry, it lapsed with the order of dismissal
and the subsequent declaration by the Civil Court that the order of
dismissal Was illegal. could not revive an order_ which. had ceased to
exist.
·.
~i.
·
- ·
··
·
t'~··l:.. The- que"~tioil whether the order of suspension dated the 24th
August, 1944, . was valid . and whether it was passed after due en-
. quiry; woold be material only with refeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.