TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court affirms High Court decision on illegal dismissal, timely suit, and costs</h1> The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision that the dismissal was illegal, the suit was timely, and maintainable. The respondent's dismissal was ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality and validity of the dismissal order.2. Timeliness of the suit.3. Maintainability of the suit.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Validity of the Dismissal Order:The respondent, an Assistant Director, Civil Supplies, was dismissed from service by an order dated 3 June 1949, but this order was communicated to him only on 2/3 January 1953. The respondent filed a suit challenging the dismissal as 'invalid, inoperative and illegal,' claiming that no proper enquiry was conducted and the procedure was 'wholly illegal and invalid.' The trial Judge found the dismissal 'illegal, void and ultra vires' but dismissed the suit as not maintainable. The High Court upheld the trial Judge's finding on the illegality of the dismissal, stating that the dismissal was 'ultra vires, void and illegal.' The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the enquiry was illegal from the beginning, the chargesheet was unreasonable, and the respondent was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, thus contravening Section 14(2) of the Ordinance.2. Timeliness of the Suit:The trial Judge and the High Court both found the suit to be within the time limits. The Supreme Court supported this finding, emphasizing that the dismissal order could not take effect until it was communicated to the respondent. The Court stated, 'the mere passing of an order of dismissal would not be effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer concerned.' The respondent came to know about his dismissal on 28 May 1951, and thus the suit filed on 20 April 1954 was within the permissible time frame.3. Maintainability of the Suit:The trial Judge held the suit as not maintainable, but the High Court disagreed, finding it maintainable. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, referencing Section 13 of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union General Provisions (Administrative) Ordinance, 2005 BK, which allowed the Government to be sued. Section 14(2) of the Ordinance, which corresponds to Article 311 of the Constitution, mandates that no civil servant shall be dismissed without a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. The Court concluded that the suit was competent, stating, 'the protection afforded by the said section would be not only meaningless but wholly elusive if a suit like the present one is held to be incompetent.'Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the dismissal was illegal, the suit was within time, and the suit was maintainable. The respondent had not received a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, rendering the dismissal order invalid. The appeal failed and was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
