Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMRIT LAL BANSAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Amrit Lal Bansal v. State of Punjab & Anr - RSA-1678-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 1735 (16 March 2006)

R.S.A. No.1678 of 2003 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.S.A. No.1678 of 2003

Date of decision: March 21,2006

Amrit Lal Bansal V. State of Punjab and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri V.K.Jindal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Ms. Neelofer A. Perveen, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

This case has a chequered history. The facts which emerge from the record show that a punishment order dated November 15,1989 was passed against the plaintiff-appellant. Vide the aforesaid order, the plaintiff was ordered to be reverted by two steps. The said order was challenged by the plaintiff in a writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed on October 8,1990. The plaintiff also lost before the Apex Court,hen his special leave petition was dismissed. After his unsuccessful attempts before this Court as well as the Apex Court, the plaintiff filed a review petition before the department..The aforesaid review petition was apparently allowed and the order of punishment was modified and rather than two steps reversion, the plaintiff was ordered to be reverted by one step, vide an order dated March 20,1991. The plaintiff persisted with his efforts. He filed an appeal before the departmental authority. The said appeal was also dismissed on February 5,1992.

Still not satisfied, the plaintiff took up the matter in the civil court by way of challenging the order dated March 20,1991 and the appellate order dated February 5,1992.

The learned trial court held that in view of the subsequent order dated March 20,1991, the earlier order dated November 15,1989 was to be ignored and consequently partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

Two separate appeals were filed before the appellate Court.

One appeal was filed by the plaintiff and another appeal was filed by the R.S.A. No.1678 of 2003 2

defendants. The learned first appellate Court held that since the plaintiff had failed in his earlier attempt before the High Court as well as the Apex Court, therefore, the suit filed by him was hit by the principles of resjudicata.

Consequently, the appeal of the defendants was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. As a result thereof, the appeal of the plaintiff was also dismissed.

The only grievance made by Shri V.K.Jindal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is that in this case the department itself had passed the order dated March 20,1991, whereby the original order of punishment dated November 15,1989 had been modified and the plaintiff had been awarded punishment of one step reduction in rank. According to the learned counsel, the trial court had merely recognised the passing of the aforesaid order dated March 20,1991 and it had partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The learned counsel has argued that by dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff, the department is going to construe that even the order dated March 20,1991, modifying the original order of punishment would be treated as set aside.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, I find that since the necessary relief had been granted by the department and the original order of punishment dated November 15,1989 had been modified, when a subsequent order dated March 20,1991 had been passed by the department reducing the punishment awarded to the plaintiff, therefore, the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff by the appellate court cannot result in withdrawing/setting aside of the aforesaid order dated March 20,1991, in any manner. The apprehension expressed by the plaintiff, in this regard, is without any justification. Since the department had itself passed the aforesaid order dated Mach 20,1991, therefore, for all practical purposes the aforesaid order has to operate against the plaintiff in supersession of the earlier order dated November 15,1989.

In view of the aforesaid discussion,I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.

March 21,2006 ( Viney Mittal )

sks Judge

R.S.A. No.1678 of 2003 3


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.