Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KRISHAN NIWAS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. we have heard counsel on both sides.
This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment
of the Punjob & Haryana High Courtm made on March 7. 1996 in
Second Appeal No.2662/95.
The admitted facts are that the respondent was charged
for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He was convicted and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Thereafter,
proceedings were initiated against him under Article 311(2)
of the Constitution and he was removed from service. Appeal
against his conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. was allowed
by the High Court. Punishment of conviction under Section
302 IPC was modified to one under Section 325 IPC and he was
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years.
After undergoing the imprisonment, the respondent filed an
appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate
authority by order dated March 1, 1989 reduced the
punishment of removal from service to lower scale of pay
drawn by him and directed that he was not entitled to back-
wages. The respondent accepted it and joined duty on June 5,
1989. Subsequently, he filed a civil suit for declaration
that his dismissal from the service and reduction of rank
and also the direction that he is not entitled to pay the
arrears of wages, were illegal, the Addl. District Judge
reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the
suit. In the second appeal, the High Court has confirmed the
same. Thus this appeal, by special leave.
Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the
offence with which he was sentenced under Section 325 IPC
does not involve his moral turpitude and, therefore, the
imposition of punishment of reduction of his scale of pay
and also denial of back wages, is clearly illegal and that
the appellants are not entitled to challenge the order. We
find no force in the contention. The respondent having
accepted the order of the appellate authority and joined the
post on June 5, 1989, it was not open to him to challenge
the order subsequently. By his conduct he has accepted the
correctness of the order and then acted upon it. Under these
circumstances, the civil Court would not have gone into the
merits and decided the matter against the appellants.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The orders of the
High Court and the appellate Court stand set aside and that
of the trial Court stands confirmed. No costs.