- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dharam Pal Sharma v. State Of Punjab
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff, formerly employed as a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in the Animal Husbandry Department, was suspended following apprehension in a corruption case. He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, but was later acquitted on appeal by this Court. Despite the acquittal, an order of dismissal was passed against the plaintiff on 2 March 1984, based on the conduct that led to his conviction. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the dismissal order was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, and claimed reinstatement with consequential benefits. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that no enquiry was required when dismissal was based on conduct leading to conviction. The first appeal was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, prompting the plaintiff to file this second appeal.
Additionally, the first appeal was dismissed on the procedural ground that the plaintiff's attorney, Jatinder Nath, lacked the power to verify the plaint or to file the suit, rendering the suit itself not maintainable.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the power of attorney granted to the plaintiff's attorney authorized him to verify the pleadings and institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff.
- Whether the dismissal order passed against the plaintiff on the basis of conduct leading to his conviction was valid and whether an enquiry was necessary before dismissal.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The power of attorney (Ex. P-1) authorized the attorney to sign the plaint, complaint, written statement, replication, application, and to do all other acts necessary for prosecution of the suit.
- Such authorization inherently included the power to verify the pleadings and institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff.
Respondent's Arguments
- The power to sign the plaint does not extend to the power to verify the pleadings.
- Since the attorney lacked power to verify pleadings, the suit was not maintainable.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the relevant portion of the power of attorney (Ex. P-1), which authorized the attorney to engage advocates, sign pleadings including plaint, complaint, written statement, replication, and applications under any order or rule of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, and to do all acts deemed fit and necessary for prosecution of the suit. The Court interpreted this authorization as inclusive of the power to verify pleadings and institute the suit. Consequently, the Court found the lower Courts' conclusion—that the attorney lacked such power—to be legally unsustainable. The Court set aside the impugned order dismissing the appeal on this ground and remitted the matter to the Additional District Judge for adjudication on the merits of the appeal, as those issues were not previously decided.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dismissing the first appeal on the ground of lack of power of attorney.
The case is remitted to the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, for disposal of the appeal on merits. This decision directly affects the procedural posture of the case by permitting the appeal to proceed on substantive grounds. No new precedent regarding the substantive dismissal order or related constitutional issues was established in this judgment.
V.K Jhanji, J.:— This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration has been dismissed.
2. Plaintiff had been working as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon in Animal Husbandry Department. He was apprehended in a case of corruption and placed under suspension. Plaintiff was tried and was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the order of conviction was allowed by this Court and he was acquitted of the charge. On 2.3.1984, order of dismissal was passed against the plaintiff. The dismissal was on the basis of conduct which led to his conviction. Plaintiff instituted suit for declaration that order of dismissal is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and he is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Suit was dismissed by the trial Court holding that no enquiry was required to be held when order of dismissal had been passed on the basis of conduct which led to his conviction. Plaintiff filed first appeal but the same has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the second appeal by the plaintiff.
3. At this stage, it may be observed that plaintiff had filed suit through his attorney, Jatinder Nath. Appeal has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge solely on the ground that attorney of the plaintiff has not been given power to verify the plaint or to file suit and that being so, suit itself was not maintainable.
4. In this second appeal, it has been contended by the counsel for plaintiff that in the power of attorney, Ex. P-1, attorney of the plaintiff was authorised to sign the plaint, complaint, written statement, replication and application or to do all other things necessary for prosecution of the suit. Against this, Mr. S.K Bhanot, DAG Punjab, has Page: 379contended that power to sign plaint does not include the power to verify the pleadings.
5. After hearing the counsel, I am of the view that judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge is not sustainable in law. The relevant portion of the power of attorney, Ex. P-1, reads as under:—
“To engage any advocate or advocates to defend or offend any matter relating to us or our properties in any court upto highest appellate court and to sign plaint, complaint, written statement, replication, application under any order or rule of section 151 C.P.C and in short to do all such other things which he deems fit and necessary for the better prosecution of the purposes mentioned above and act or acts done by our Attorney shall be considered done by us personally and we hereby undertake to ratify the same.”
6. A reading of the above-quoted portion of the power of attorney makes it very clear that the attorney was authorised to sign plaint and to do all such other things which he deemed fit and necessary for the proper prosecution of the case. The power to sign plaint includes the power to institute suit and verify the pleadings on behalf of the plaintiff. The Courts below are not right in saying that the power of attorney, Ex. P-1, did not authorise the attorney to verify the pleadings or to institute the suit. The order under appeal thus, is to be set aside and it is so ordered. Since the other issues were not decided by the Additional District Judge, the matter is remitted to the said Court for deciding the appeal on merits.
7. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, 25.10.1997
8. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Alert