S. KUMAR versus THE INSTITUTE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY STUDIES AND OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 29-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

l 
\ 
I 
S. KUMAR 
v. 
THE INSTITUTE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND 
PARLIAMENTARY STUDIES.AND OTHERS 
September 29, 1983 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUi>, C. J., R. 'S. PATHAK AND 
. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] 
. 
-A 
B 
Civil Procedure-Proceedings co1nmenced-Change in cause of action-
Whether prOceedings can be maintained on the ~riginal cause of action. 
C 
Civil Procedure-Amendment ofplalnt-When to b~ done. 
The appellant who was found guilty of a charge in an enquiry was 
served with a notice to show cause why he ~hould not be dismissed from 
service. A second charge was also framed against the appellant. The 
appellant filed a suit for declaration and an injunction and obtained an!exparte 
order restraining the respondent and its officers from dismissing him. The 
Subordio3;te Judge dismissed the sUit is not maintainable. The appellant filed 
an appeal before the Senior Subordinate Judge. In reply to the stay appli-
cation it was stated that the stay application had become infructuous as the 
appellant had been dismlssed fro~ 'service. The Senior Subordinate Judge 
dismissed the appeal. The appellant -filed a second appeal in the High Coi.Irt 
and during the pendency n1oved an application. for amendment of the·plaint. 
The High Court rejected the amendment application and dismissed the appeal. 
Jn this appeal the appellant urged that among' the reliefs claimed in his amend~ 
ment application filed in the High Court he had included the relief for 
declaring the order o_f dismissal invalid. The appellant filed an applicatiOn 
praying for amendment of the plaint by the inclusion of such a•relief. 
Dismsssing the appeal, 
HELD: The appeal is not maintainable. 
Once an order of dismissal was passed against him, a different cause of. 
action arose and it was not possiblC for the app~llant (o .maintain the pro-
ceedings on the original cause of action. The original reliefs claimed in "the 
suit consisted. of a decree of declaration that the proceedings taken against 
the appellant upto the framing of the second charge on October 15/16, 1975 
were invalid, and a decree for perpc!tual injunction restraining the respondents 
from dismissing the appellant. At no stage upto the dismissal of his second 
appeal did the appellant attempt to include a relief in his. plaint against the 
order of dismissal. On the contrary, the reliefs sought to be included through 
the amendment application filed -in the High Court proceeded en the 
assumption that the appellant was stiJl continuing in service. (156 E-F; B-C} 
' 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPoRTS 
it9a4! i s.c.a. 
The Court is constrained to reject the applicatio~ praying for )eave to 
amend the plaint inasmuch as it is for the first time throughout this protracted, 
proceeding commencing with the institution of the suit in 1975 that the -
appellant is now seeking to include thC relief aithough he had come to know 
several years ago that he had been dismissed. No circumstance has been 
shown explaining why the appellant should be permitted at this late stage to 
amend the plaint. It has also not been established by the appellant that if a 
suit is a filed now against the order of disinissal it would be within the period 
of limitation. [156; H 157 A:BJ 
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgme,nt and Order dated 
the 18th April, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in Regular Second 
Appeal No. 33 of 1977. 
Petitioner in Person. 
Anand Prakash, C.S. Vaidyan,athan, Probir Chowdhry Ms. Laxmt 
Anand and Samir Prakash for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
' 
PATHAK, J. · This appeal by special leave is directed against 
a judgment of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the appellant's 
second appeal. 
The appellant was appointed in 1968 to the -post of Research 
Officer of the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, 
New Delhi, as a society registered under the Societies Registration 
· Act, 1860, and was later designated as Assistant Director. Sub· 
sequently, he was given additional charge of the Library of the 
Institute. In March, 1_974 the appellant submitted a bill of Rs. ·350 
to the Institute claiming reimbursement of medical expenses incurred 
by him in the delivery of a child to his wife during the previous 
mont]j. The Institute, however, framed a .charge on November 5, 
1974 against the petitioner; alleging that-he was attempting to draw 
the sum by tendering a false bill.. A member of the Executive 
Council of the Institute was appo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.