TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 Reinstates Trial Court Decree, Grants Salary Entitlement, and Awards Costs</h1> <h3>Surath Chandra Chakrabarty Versus State of West Bengal</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's judgment and decree, and reinstating the trial court's decree. The appellant was ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the contract of employment.2. Legitimacy of the suspension order.3. Bias of the Enquiry Officer.4. Legality of the dismissal order dated 16th September 1950.5. Legality of the removal order dated 31st May 1952.6. Entitlement to reinstatement and pay.7. Relief entitlement.8. Validity of the enquiry by Mr. Gupta.9. Applicability of res judicata.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Contract of Employment:The court examined whether there was a valid contract of employment between the plaintiff and the defendant under the Government of India Act. It was held that the appellant had been duly appointed as a member of the Fire Service of the State and that a contract in terms of Article 299 of the Constitution was not necessary.2. Legitimacy of the Suspension Order:The appellant questioned whether the suspension order dated 12th July 1949 was mala fide, wrongful, and ultra vires. The trial court did not press this issue, and it was not a focal point in the judgment.3. Bias of the Enquiry Officer:The trial court found that the Enquiry Officer, S. K. Gupta, was biased against the appellant before conducting the enquiry. This bias was a significant factor in the court's decision to rule the enquiry process as vitiated.4. Legality of the Dismissal Order Dated 16th September 1950:The appellant argued that the order dated 16th September 1950 was illegal, void, and ultra vires. The court found that the charges were vague and indefinite, and there was non-compliance with Fundamental Rule 55, which mandates that charges must be accompanied by a statement of allegations. This lack of specificity denied the appellant a proper and reasonable opportunity to defend himself.5. Legality of the Removal Order Dated 31st May 1952:The appellant challenged the order of removal dated 31st May 1952 on grounds similar to those for the dismissal order. The trial court held that the removal was void and inoperative due to the same reasons of vagueness and non-compliance with procedural rules.6. Entitlement to Reinstatement and Pay:The trial court granted a declaration that the appellant was still in government service and entitled to salary and other benefits from the date of his suspension until the date of the judgment. The appellant was awarded a decree for Rs. 69,636/- along with interest at 6% per annum until realization.7. Relief Entitlement:The trial court granted the appellant relief in the form of reinstatement and back pay. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, further granting the appellant a declaration that he is entitled to salary and allowances for the period subsequent to the date of the decree of the learned Single Judge of the High Court to the date of his superannuation.8. Validity of the Enquiry by Mr. Gupta:The trial court found that the enquiry conducted by Mr. Gupta was vitiated due to bias and non-compliance with procedural rules. The charges were vague and indefinite, and the appellant was not provided with a statement of allegations, which is a requirement under Fundamental Rule 55.9. Applicability of Res Judicata:The court addressed whether it was debarred from trying certain issues due to res judicata. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench had given concurrent findings against the respondent on this point, and the respondent was not permitted to re-agitate the matter before the Supreme Court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Division Bench, and restored the trial court's decree. The appellant was granted a declaration of entitlement to salary and allowances for the period subsequent to the date of the decree of the learned Single Judge of the High Court to the date of his superannuation. The appellant was also awarded costs in the Supreme Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
