Supreme Court of India
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusKRISHAN NIWAS
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 273
- Decided
- 14 March 1997
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
Acceptance of the departmental order and rejoining service bars any subsequent challenge to that order in a civil suit.
Summary
Krishan Niwas, a government employee, was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, leading to his removal from service under Article 311(2). The conviction was later modified to Section 325 IPC with a 1½‑year sentence. After serving the term, a departmental appeal reduced his penalty to a lower pay scale without back‑wages; he accepted the order and rejoined duty. He subsequently filed a civil suit challenging his dismissal, reduction in rank, and denial of arrears, which was dismissed by the trial court, reversed by the appellate district judge, and upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that by accepting the departmental order and resuming service, the employee waived the right to contest the order later, and therefore the civil suit was barred. Consequently, the appellate and High Court orders were set aside and the trial court’s dismissal was confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether a government employee who has accepted a departmental order reducing his rank and pay and has rejoined service can later challenge that order in a civil suit.
- Whether a conviction under Section 325 IPC, which does not involve moral turpitude, justifies denial of back‑wages and reduction in pay.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 311(2)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 325
Subjects
service lawdepartmental proceedingsconvictionIPCArticle 311back wagesreduction of rankacceptance of ordercivil suitbarred claim
Judgment
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. A
v.
KRISHAN NIWAS
MARCH 14, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] B
Service Law :
Departmental proceedings--Employee convicted u/s. 302 !PC and sen-
tenced to undergo imprisonment for life-Depa1tme11tal proceedings initiated C
against him and he was removed from service---011 appeal against judgment
of trial coult, conviction u/s. 302 modified to one u/s. 325 !PC and impriso11-
me11t for 1-112 years awarded-After undergoing the sentence deli11quent filed
depaltmental appeal and the appellate authority · reduced punishment of
removal from service to reversion in lower pay scale without the be11efit of
back-wages-Employee accepted the order and joi11ed duty-Later he filed a D
civil suit for declaration that his dismissal from service, reduction of rank a11d
not allowi11g him back-wages were illegal-Trial Cowt dismissed the suit but
appellate coult decreed the suit and,High Coult confiimed the decree-Held,
the employee having accepted the order of the appellate authority and joined
the post, it was not open to him to challenge the order subsequentl;r-By his
conduct he has accepted the correctness of the order a11d acted upo11 it-Civil E
Coult would 11ot have go11e iitto the merits and decided the matter against the
Government-Order of appellate coult and High Coult are set aside and the
order of trial court stands confimied.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2222 of F
1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.3.96 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in R.S.A. No. 2662 of 1995.
H.M. Singh and R.S. Suri for the Appellants.
G
P.N. Puri for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides. H
1135
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S. C.R.
A This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court made on March 7, 1996 in Second Appeal No. 26fJ2/95.
The admitted facts are that the respondent was charged for an offence
under Section 302 l.P.C. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo im-
prisonment for life. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated against him under
B Article 311(2) of the Constitution and he was removed from service. Appeal
against his conViction under Section 302 I.P.C. was allowed by the High Court.
Punishment of conviction under Section 302 !PC was modified to one under
Section 325 lPC and he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
1-1/2 years. After undergoing the imprisonment, the respondent filed an
C appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by order dated
March 1, 1989 reduced the punishment of removal from service to lower scale
of pay drawn by him and directed that he was not entitled to back-wages. The
respondent accepted it and joined duty on June 5, 1989. Subsequently, he filed
a civil suit for declaration that his dismissal from the service and reduction of
rank and also the direction that he i<; not entitled to pay the arrears of wages,
D were illegal. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Addi. District
Judge reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit. In the
second appeal, the High Court has confirmed the same. Thus this appeal, by
special leave.
E Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the offence with
which he was sentenced under Section 325 !PC does not involve his moral
turpitude and, therefore, the imposition of punishment of reduction of his
scale of pay and also denial of back-wages, is cl..;arly illegal and that the
appellants arc not entitled to challenge the order. We find no force in the
contention. The respondent having accepted the order of the appellate
F authority and joined the post on June 5, 1989, it was not open to challenge the
order subsequently. By his conduct he has accepted the con:~ctness of the
order and then acted upon it. Under these circumstances, the civil Court
would not have gone into the merits and decided the matter against the
appellants.
G
Accordingiy, the appeal is allowed. The orders of the High Court and
the appellate Court stand set aside and that of the trial Court stands
confirmed. No costs.
R.P. Appeal allowed.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search