SRI RAMENDRA KISHORE BISWASversusTHE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.

A                      SRI RAMENDRA KISHORE BISWAS
                                     v.
                       THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS.

                                 DECEMBER 4, 1998

B      [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., V.N. KHARE AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ:]


           Service Law :

           Central Civil Service (classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965-
C Section 24-Jurisdiction of Civil Courts to deal with service matters-
     Departmental Enquiry-Order of Dismissal-Challenged by filing a civil
     suit-Dismissed-District Judge while allowing the appeal held that the
     Dismissal was illegal-Appeal by respondents-High Court holding that
      Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an order passed by the disciplinary
D    authority-Held, Civil Courts not ousted ofjurisdiction to deal with afl order
     passed by the disciplinary authority-Service Rules neither expressly nor
     impliedly taken away jurisdiction of Civil Courts to deal with service matter-
     High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction-Matter remitted to High Court
     for fresh disposal on merits.

E           A Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the appellant and the
     Inquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges framed against him. After
     issuing a show cause notice to the appellant, the disciplinary Authority
     dismissed the appellant from service. The order of dismissal was challenged
     by filing a civil suit, which was dismissed. However, on appeal, the District
     Judge allowed the appeal holding that the order of dismissal w:is illegal. The
F    respondents filed an appeal before the High Court, which held that in view
     of C.C.S. (C.C. & A.) Rules, 1965 Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with
     the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence the present appeal.

          Allowing the appeal, and setting aside the order of the High Court, this
     Court.
G
           HELD : I.I. The opinion expressed by the Single Judge of the High
     Court that in view of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control &
     Appeal) Rules, 1965, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted from dealing
     with an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority which can be questioned
     under the Service Rules and that recourse can only be had to file a writ
fI                                         400
                           R.K.BISWAS v.STATE                            401
petition, is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained. [402-F-G]                A
        1.2. The appellant could not have been non-suited on the ground that
he had failed to take rl!course to proceedings under the rules against the
order of dismissal. 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 civil court       B
had no jurisdiction while hearing a second appeal, after the matter has been
litigated in civil courts for more than five years was not proper. The Single
Judge ought to have decided the case on its merits and not made a short cut
of it. (402-H; 403-A-B)

      1.3. Service Rules neither expressly nor by implication have taken         C
away the jurisdiction of the civil courts to deal with service matter. The
opinion of the Single Judge does violence to the Code of Civil procedure, the
Specific Relief Act and the Service Rules. In fact the Single Judge failed to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in him while non-suiting the appellant.
                                                                     [403-D)     D
     2. The matter is remitte~ to the High Court for a fresh disposal on
merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by the opinion expressed in the
present judgment on the merits of the case. (403-E)

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6080 of                  E
1998.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 21.3.97 of the Assam High Court
in S. A. No. 41of1996

        P.K. Goswami and Rajiv Mehta for the Appellant.
                                                                                 F
        S.B. Sanyal and Ms. Sumeet Kaur for K.K. Gupta for the Respondents

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered

        Leave granted.
                                                                                 G
      The appellant was proceeded against Departmentally when the Inquiry
Officer found him guilty of the charges framed against him and submitted his
report dated 17th November, 1992 to the Disciplinary Authority. After issuance
of show cause notice to the appellant seeking his reply, the Disciplinary
Authority agreed with the Inquiry Officer and dismissed the appellant from
service vide Memo dated 12th February, 1993. The order of dismissal was. put     H
    402                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A    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 21st August, 1995, the suit was dismissed. The
     appeal filed by the appellant before the learned District Judge, however,
     succeeded and on 30th July, 1996, the learned District Judge allowing the
     appeal declared that since proper procedure had not been followed and the
B    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 Inquiry after providing the appellant a Defence
     Assistant of his choice from the stage at which his earlier Defence Assistant
C    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 21st March,
     1997, the second appeal, filed by the respondent, was allowed. The learned
    Single Judge of the High Court referred to Rule 24 of the C.C.S. (C.C. & A.)
     Rules, 1965 and opined that in view of those provisions, the jurisdiction of
D   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 subject matter of challenge in a writ petition and that the
    jurisdiction of the civil court to deal with the matter of this type through a
E   civil suit stood ousted.

          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.

         We have heard Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of
F   the appellant and Ms. Sumeet Kaur, learned counsel on behalf of the
    respondents.

          The opinion expressed by the learned single Judge to the effect that in
    view of C.C.A. Rules, the jurisdiction of the civil court is ousted from dealing
G   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
H   when he approaches the Court without exhausting departmental remedies
                             R.K.BISWASv.STATE                               403
under the service rules but to ho Id that the civil court had no jurisdiction        A
while hearing a second appeal, after the matter has been litigated in civil court
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 C.C.S. (C.C. & A.)          B
Rules, 1965 against the order of dismissal.

      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 as its jurisdiction   C
has been taken by the special rules i.e .. 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       D
nor by implication have taken away the jurisdiction of the civil courts to deal
with service matter. 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       E
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.
                                                                                     F
     We clarify that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as any
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

      The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal.

S.V.K.                                                          Appeal allowed.      G