LexTHE GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD versus G.C. PANDYA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2015] 4 S.C.R. 326 THE GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD v. G.C. PANDYA (Civil Appeal No. 3563 of 2015) APRIL 13, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Service law: Disciplinary proceedings - Punishment C of censure on 26. 6. 2002 - After superannuation on 30.6.2002, respondent filed suit for declaration that the disciplinary enquiry held against him and the punishment awarded were illegal - Respondent also sought promotion w. e.f. 1. 1. 2002 - Appellant-board did not file written D statement - Trial court decreed the suit - Appellate courts upheld the same - Held: Plea of appellant-employer that respondent had not completed 3 years of service as Superintending Engineer and as such he was not entitled E to be promoted as Chief Engineer was not raised before the trial court and, therefore, concurrent findings of fact cannot be set aside - Further, it is the duty of the High Court to formulate substantial questions of law as required uls. 100 of C. PC. - But, in the instant case, from the F impugned order it nowhere reflected that the second appeal was admitted, rather it showed that after hearing the parties, High Court held that there was no substantial question of law involved in the appeal - High Court rightly took note of the fact that the appellant-board G neither chose to file written statement nor led any evidence before the trial court - No doubt, the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage, but there was no other forum for the respondent where he could have H 326 THE GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD v. G.C. PANDYA 327 sought his remedy - As such, there was no error in the A impugned order - The only error committed by trial court was that instead of directing appellant-board to consider promotion of respondent w.e.f. 1.1.2002, it declared promotion of the respondent w.e.f. said date without considering his service record - Ordered accordingly - B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. As far as actual period served as c Superintending Engineer by the plaintiff was concerned, said fact should have been pleaded specifically by the defendant/appellant, but it did not even care to file the written statement before the trial court. When there was no such plea before the trial D court, the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below cannot be set aside. [Para 10] [331-C-D] Ba/raj Taneja and another v. Sunil Madan and another 1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 258: (1999) 8 SCC 396 - E referred to. 2. In a case where the written statement is not filed, the civil court has the jurisdiction to proceed under Order VIII Rule 10 of C.P.C. However, the F orders are not required to be passed in mechanical manner in exercise of the powers contained in the above mentioned provision of law. In the present case the trial court did not act mechanically. Rather it discussed the pleadings and the evidence led by the G plaintiff, and considered rival submissions. The only error committed by the trial court was that it declared the plaintiff to have been promoted w.e.f 1.1.2002 without considering service record of the Officer (plaintiff). Thus, instead of treating the plaintiff to have H 328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A been promoted w.e.f. 1 .. 2002 as Chief Engineer, his case shall be considered by defendant for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 1.1.2002. [Paras 13, 14] [332-B-C; 333-D-F; 334-A-B] B c Case Law Reference 1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 258 referred to. Para 13 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3563 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2013 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Second Appeal No. 172 of 2013. D Hemantika Wahi, Jesal Wahi, Giss Antony for the E Appellant. Alok Bhachawat, Manoj Joshi, K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 18.12.2013, passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Second Appeal No. 172 of 2013 whereby F said Court has dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court and the trial court. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and G perused the papers on record. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondent G.C. Pandya was Deputy Engineer (civil) with the appellant Gujarat Maritime Board. He was charge- H sheeted for certain·
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.