- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State Of Tripura And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, a government employee, was subjected to a departmental enquiry in which the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges. After issuing a show-cause notice, the disciplinary authority concurred with the Enquiry Officer’s findings and dismissed the appellant from service by memo dated 12-2-1993.
The appellant filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that his dismissal was void and for reinstatement. The trial court dismissed the suit on 21-8-1995. On appeal, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal on 30-7-1996, holding that proper procedure had not been followed—specifically, the appellant had been denied the assistance of a Defence Assistant after his earlier representative ceased to act. The appellate court declared the dismissal illegal but allowed the respondent-department to recommence the enquiry from the point at which the Defence Assistant withdrew.
The respondent preferred a second appeal, and the appellant filed cross-objections. On 21-3-1997, a learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the respondent’s appeal, holding that Rule 24 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ousted the jurisdiction of civil courts in such service matters. Aggrieved, the appellant obtained special leave to appeal, leading to the present decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, by virtue of Rule 24 or otherwise, oust the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits challenging disciplinary orders after departmental remedies exist or have been invoked.
- Whether the High Court, in a regular second appeal, could non-suit the appellant solely on the ground of such alleged jurisdictional bar without adjudicating the matter on its merits.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court found the Single Judge’s conclusion that the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 exclude civil-court jurisdiction to be “palpably erroneous.” It observed that:
- Service Rules neither expressly nor impliedly bar civil courts from adjudicating service matters.
- A litigant may appropriately be directed to exhaust departmental remedies when initiating action, but after more than five years of civil-court litigation, it was improper to dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
- The Single Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the High Court by shortcutting the controversy instead of addressing the merits of the regular second appeal and the cross-objections.
Consequently, the Court held that the High Court should have decided the second appeal on its merits rather than rely on a perceived statutory ouster.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; order of the learned Single Judge set aside; Regular Second Appeal and cross-objections remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law.
Immediate Effect: The High Court must now decide the second appeal and the accompanying cross-objections on their substantive merits. Each party will bear its own costs of the present appeal.
Broader Implication: The decision reaffirms that the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 do not, by themselves, divest civil courts of jurisdiction over service-related disputes, thereby cautioning courts against dismissing such matters solely on perceived statutory ouster without explicit legislative mandate.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was proceeded against departmentally when the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges framed against him and submitted his report dated 17-11-1992 to the disciplinary authority. After issuance of show-cause notice to the appellant seeking his reply, the disciplinary authority agreed with the Enquiry Officer and dismissed the appellant from service vide memo dated 12-2-1993. The order of dismissal was put in issue by the appellant by instituting a civil suit for declaration that the order of dismissal from service was void and illegal and that the appellant was entitled to be reinstated. On 21-8-1995, the suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by the appellant before the learned District Judge, however, succeeded and on 30-7-1996, the learned District Judge allowing the appeal declared that since proper procedure had not been followed and the appellant had been denied the facility of a Defence Assistant after his earlier Defence Assistant had ceased to act for him, the order of dismissal was illegal. The appellate court, however, granted liberty to the respondent to continue with the departmental enquiry after providing the appellant with a Defence Assistant of his choice from the stage at which his earlier Defence Assistant had ceased to act as Defence Assistant and to proceed therefrom. The respondent filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge while the appellant filed cross-objections. On 21-3-1997, the second appeal filed by the respondent was allowed. The learned Single Judge of the High Court referred to Rule 24 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and opined that in view of those provisions, the jurisdiction of the civil court had been taken away. The learned Single Judge went on to hold that where recourse is had to departmental proceedings, the order of the appellate authority against an adverse order of the disciplinary authority, could only be the subject-matter of challenge in a writ petition and that the jurisdiction of the civil court to deal with a matter of this type through a civil suit stood ousted.
3. It is against the above judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the present appeal has been filed by special leave.
4. We have heard Mr P.K Goswami, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant and Ms Sumeet Kaur, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.
5. The opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge to the effect that in view of the CCA Rules, the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted from dealing with an order passed by the disciplinary authority which can be questioned under the Service Rules and that even after recourse is had to the departmental proceedings, recourse can only be to file a writ petition is palpably erroneous. The learned Single Judge readily accepted the ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts to deal with service matters without proper consideration of the matter. Indeed, it is appropriate to relegate a person to exhaust departmental remedies when he approaches the court without exhausting departmental remedies under the Service Rules but to hold that the civil court had no jurisdiction while hearing a second appeal, after the matter has been litigated in civil courts for more than five years was, to say the least, not proper. The learned Single Judge ought to have decided the case on its own merits and not made a short-cut of it. The appellant could not have been non-suited on the ground that he had failed to take recourse to proceedings under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the order of dismissal.
6. Again the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge to the effect:
“It is my firm conviction that in the present case, the civil court cannot make a declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as its jurisdiction has been taken away by the special rules, i.e, the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Under the circumstances, it means a civil court does not have jurisdiction in respect of matters which are entertained and decided by the statutory tribunal in conformity with the powers conferred by the enactment.”
is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Service Rules, neither expressly nor by implication, have taken away the jurisdiction of the civil courts to deal with service matters. The opinion of the learned Single Judge does violence both to the Code of Civil Procedure, the Specific Relief Act and the Service Rules. As a matter of fact it appears to us that the learned Single Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him while non-suiting the appellant. It, therefore, appears appropriate to us to allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision of the regular second appeal and the cross-objections on their own merits. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The RSA and cross-objections are remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits in accordance with law.
7. We clarify that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
8. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal.
Alert