UNION OF INDIA versus NANAK SINGH

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 887 · Decided: 31-01-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
, 
G 
H 
UNION OF INDIA 
'· 
NANAK SINGH 
January 31, 1968 
(1. C. SHAH AND V. RAMAswAMI, JJ.] 
Res Judicata-Petltion under A.rt. 226 allowed by single Judge o/ High 
CouN on twn groumh-Division Bench· dismissing petition by advene/y 
deciding first ground Olld not considering second ground-Second growul 
whether can be basis of civil suit-Whether barred by re&<judicata, 
The respondCJ1t was a temporary Field Inspector of the Office of the 
Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi. 
By an order passed in Januaey 
1958 the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Mr. Kane, who wu also 
holding the office of Additional Custodian terminated the employment of 
the respondent after giving him one month's salaey in lieu of notice. The 
order was confirmed by the departmental authorities in appeal. The res-
pondent filed a writ petition in the High Court on two grounds, namely : 
(i) that the order terminating the employment amounted to punishment 
and could not be made without affording opportunity to be heard; (ii) 
that Mr. Kane was not competent under s. 5 of the Central Services 
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1949 to pass the order. The single Judge 
who heard the petition upheld both the grounds and granted the petitilJn. 
In appeal, the Division Bench reversed the order and dismissed the peti• 
lion observing that the order in question did not amount to punishment. 
The Division Bench observed that the second point was not before them, 
because arguments were advanced mainly on the first rint and on a de-
cimon of tho first point the appeal. could he disposed o . The respondents 
petition under Act. 136 of the Constitution for special leave to appeal to 
this Court was dismissed. The respondent thereafter instituted a suit in 
the Civil Court. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the first appellate 
court held that the order terminating the respondent's serviee was void. 
A second appeal by the Union of India was dismissed by the High Court 
on the view that the order of termination of services was passed by an 
incompetent authority and this issue was not barred by res judicata. The 
Union of India appealed. 
d'' 
HELD : The single Judge who decided the respondent's W[lf"petition 
decided both the grounds in his favour. When in appeal the.High Court 
reversed the judgment and dismissed the petition it must be deemed to 
have rejected both the grounds on which the petition was founded. 
In 
rejecting the fil'!t plea the High Court gave detailed reasons. The second 
plea must also be deemed to have been negatived by the High Court. for 
the High Court could not, without reversing the judgment of the single 
Judge, on that plea have dismissed the petition. The suit was therefore 
barred by res judlcata. 
It could not be said that the High Court reserved to the respondent 
the right to agitate the question about the authority of Mr. Kane to pass 
the order. in a separate suit. There was no snch express reservation and 
it could not be implied, for such an implication was plainly inconsistent 
with the final order passed by the High Court. 
Gukibchand Chhota/al Parikh v. State of Gujarat, A.I.R. 1965. S.C 
II 53, referred to. 
Abdul/ah Ashgar Ali Khan v. Gnnesh Dass, A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 201. 
held not applicable. 
1.3 Sup Cl/63-14 
SSS 
~vl'REML COURT REPORTS 
[ 1968) 2 S.C.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No; 280 of 
A 
1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
September 29, 1966 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at 
Delhi in Regular Second Appeal No. 74-D of 1966. 
B. Sen, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. 
Pritam Singh Safeer, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of tile Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. 
Nanak Singh-respondent in this appeal-held in 
August 1957 the post of Field Inspector in the Office of the 
Custodian, Evacuee Property, 
Delhi, as a temporary employee. 
By order dated January 10, 1958, K. S. Kane, Additional Settle-
ment Commissioner who was also holding the office of Additional 
Custodian terminated the employment of the respondent. after 
giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice. 
The order of 
Mr. Kane was confirmed in appeal. 
Nanak Singh then moved the High Court of Punjab by a peti-
tion under Art. 226 of the Constitution for an order dcclarin)! 
that the determination of his employment was "void, illegal and 
unconstitutional" on two grounds-( I) that the order terminating 
the employment amounted to imposing punishment and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.