1994 (2) TMI 300 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms civil court jurisdiction despite statute, rejects res judicata; orders inquiry proceedings disclosure.

KRISHAN LAL Versus STATE OF J & K

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit despite the provision in the Jammu & Kashmir ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court2. Application of Res Judicata3. Consequential Orders Post Violation of Mandatory ProvisionSummary:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court:The High Court dismissed the appellant's suit on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, relying on section 20 of the Jammu & Kashmir (Government Servant) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1962, which states, 'Nothing done or purporting to have been done under this Act shall be called in question in any Court.' The Supreme Court, however, held that the civil court's jurisdiction was not barred as the dismissal order was a nullity due to the violation of the mandatory provision u/s 17(5) of the Act. The Court referenced the Constitution Bench decision in Ram Swaup v. Shikar Chand, AIR (1966) SC 893, which opined that the bar created by a statute would not operate where the impugned order is a nullity.2. Application of Res Judicata:The High Court also dismissed the suit on the ground of res judicata, citing earlier proceedings in Writ Petition No. 23 of 1978. The Supreme Court found this application erroneous, noting that there was no decision on the merits regarding the appellant's grievance in the earlier writ petition. For res judicata to apply, the issue must have been 'heard and finally decided,' which was not the case here.3. Consequential Orders Post Violation of Mandatory Provision:The Supreme Court addressed the violation of the mandatory provision u/s 17(5) of the Act, which required supplying a copy of the inquiry proceedings to the appellant. The Court held that this requirement, despite being mandatory, could be waived if it served the benefit of the individual concerned rather than a public purpose. Since the appellant had not waived this right and had requested the copy, the dismissal order was invalid. However, following the precedent set in Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad v. Karunakar, JT 1993 (6) SC 1, the Court did not set aside the dismissal order outright. Instead, it directed the employer to furnish a copy of the proceedings and instructed the High Court to determine whether the non-supply of the report prejudiced the appellant and affected the ultimate finding and punishment. If prejudice was found, the High Court should set aside the dismissal order and grant appropriate relief.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and writ petition, directing the High Court to dispose of the matter within three months and to determine the impact of the non-supply of the inquiry proceedings on the appellant's dismissal. No order as to costs was made.