SRI RAMENDRA KISHORE BISWAS versus THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 04-12-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, V.N. KHARE, M. SRINIVASAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SRI RAMENDRA KISHORE BISWAS 
v. 
THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 4, 1998 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., V.N. KHARE AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ:] 
Service Law : 
Central Civil Service (classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965-
C Section 24-Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to deal with service matters-
Departmental Enquiry-Order of Dismissal-Challenged by filing a civil 
suit-Dismissed-District Judge while allowing the appeal held that the 
Dismissal was illegal-Appeal by respondents-High Court holding that 
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an order passed by the disciplinary 
D authority-Held, Civil Courts not ousted of jurisdiction to deal with afl order 
passed by the disciplinary authority-Service Rules neither expressly nor 
impliedly taken away jurisdiction of Civil Courts to deal with service matter-
High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction-Matter remitted to High Court 
for fresh disposal on merits. 
E 
A Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the appellant and the 
Inquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges framed against him. After 
issuing a show cause notice to the appellant, the disciplinary Authority 
dismissed the appellant from service. The order of dismissal was challenged 
by filing a civil suit, which was dismissed. However, on appeal, the District 
Judge allowed the appeal holding that the order of dismissal w:is illegal. The 
F respondents filed an appeal before the High Court, which held that in view 
of C.C.S. (C.C. & A.) Rules, 1965 Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with 
the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, and setting aside the order of the High Court, this 
Court. 
HELD : I.I. The opinion expressed by the Single Judge of the High 
Court that in view of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control & 
Appeal) Rules, 1965, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted from dealing 
with an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority which can be questioned 
under the Service Rules and that recourse can only be had to file a writ 
fI 
400 
R.K.BISWAS v.STATE 
401 
petition, is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained. [402-F-G] 
A 
1.2. The appellant could not have been non-suited on the ground that 
he had failed to take rl!course to proceedings under the rules against the 
order of dismissal. It is appropriate to relegate a person to exhaust 
Departmental remedies when he approaches the Court without exhausting 
Departmental remedies under the service rules but to hold that civil court B 
had no jurisdiction while hearing a second appeal, after the matter has been 
litigated in civil courts for more than five years was not proper. The Single 
Judge ought to have decided the case on its merits and not made a short cut 
of it. (402-H; 403-A-B) 
1.3. Service Rules neither expressly nor by implication have taken C 
away the jurisdiction of the civil courts to deal with service matter. The 
opinion of the Single Judge does violence to the Code of Civil procedure, the 
Specific Relief Act and the Service Rules. In fact the Single Judge failed to 
exercise the jurisdiction vested in him while non-suiting the appellant. 
[403-D) D 
2. The matter is remitte~ to the High Court for a fresh disposal on 
merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by the opinion expressed in the 
present judgment on the merits of the case. (403-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6080 of E 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.97 of the Assam High Court 
in S. A. No. 41of1996 
P.K. Goswami and Rajiv Mehta for the Appellant. 
S.B. Sanyal and Ms. Sumeet Kaur for K.K. Gupta for the Respondents 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
Leave granted. 
The appellant was proceeded against Departmentally when the Inquiry 
Officer found him guilty of the charges framed against him and submitted his 
report dated 17th November, 1992 to the Disciplinary Authority. After issuance 
F 
G 
of show cause notice to the appellant seeking his reply, the Disciplinary 
Authority agreed with the Inquiry Officer and dismissed the appellant from 
service vide Memo dated 12th February, 1993. The order of dismissal was. put H 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A in issue by the appellant by instituting a civil suit for declaration that the 
order of dismissal from service was void and illegal and that the appellant was 
entitled to be reinstated. On 21st August, 1995, the suit was dismissed. The 
appeal filed by 

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