AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madan B. Lokur, J.—The Appellant is aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 28th January, 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge in Suit No. 210/2003.
The Appellant was working as a Principal in DAV Secondary School, Shimla. She was charged with certain irregularities and a departmental enquiry was held against her.
Of 15 charges leveled against the Appellant, she was found guilty of 7 charges, which were considered serious in nature. The Appellant was heard on the question of punishment and thereafter dismissed from service by an order dated 7th February, 2002. She filed a departmental appeal against her dismissal but since it was not being decided, she filed a suit on the Original Side of this Court in February, 2003 challenging the enquiry report and her dismissal from service.
It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the departmental appeal filed by the Appellant was also rejected.
Due to the increase in pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred from this Court to the District Court and was taken up for consideration by the Additional District Judge.
A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that on the basis of the proceedings before the enquiry officer and the contents of the enquiry report, the Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the enquiry was conducted in a fair and impartial manner. The Additional District Judge was of the view that a civil Court could not sit in appeal over the findings of the enquiry officer and, Therefore, the suit was not maintainable.
We cannot appreciate the approach adopted. It needs hardly be said that the procedure laid down by law has to be followed while deciding a civil suit. The CPC requires that after a written statement is filed contesting the claim of the plaintiff, issues need to be framed and those issues are required to be decided. A perusal of the Trial Court record shows that issues were not framed in the case and it was straightaway taken up for decision on its maintainability. It is not clear why it was felt that the suit was not maintainable. It is not as if the right of the Appellant to approach a civil Court was barred by any law nor could it be said that judicial review was prohibited. Learned counsel for the Respondent has also not been able to give us any reason why the civil suit filed by the Appellant was not maintainable.
The Appellant was entitled to show that the departmental enquiry conducted against her was not in accordance with law or otherwise violated the principles of natural justice and this was an issue that could have been raised before the Trial Court for adjudication but the Appellant was deprived of this opportunity.
We are of the view that the Additional District Judge completely erred in holding that the suit was not maintainable on the ground that he found nothing wrong with the proceedings before the enquiry officer as well as the enquiry report. No opportunity was given to the Appellant to prove her case by leading evidence, documentary or otherwise.
Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and decree dated 28th January, 2004 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for framing of issues and conducting a trial in accordance with law.
The parties are directed to appear before the District Judge on 9th November, 2005 for further proceedings.
The Registry should sent the Trial Court record back immediately.