UNION OF INDIA Vs. R R ANASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an appellate order of the District Judge, Jhansi, whereby he allowed, the appeal and passed an ad-interim injunction restraining the Union of India from imposing the punishment of removal, reduction or dismissal as a consequence of the disciplinary proceedings till the disiosal of the suit.

(2.) It appears that the Petitioners took disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent in which he was exonerated. The matter was taken before the higher authorities by way of review, it set aside the order of exoneration and directed fresh disciplinary proceedings. This order passed in review was challenged by way of a suit principally on the ground that he was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing before the order of exoneration was set aside on review. The learned District Judge felt that there was substance in this plea because there was nothing on the record to indicate that an opportunity of hearing was given to the Appellant. He accordingly granted the injunction.

(3.) Learned Counsel for Union of India, who has filed this writ petition, submitted that in view of Clause (c) of Rule 2(2) of Order 39 Code of Civil Procedure as added in this State by the Amending Act No. 57 of 1976 which came into force on 1st January, 1977, there was no jurisdiction to grant an injunction to stay any disciplinary proceedings pending or intended during the pendency of a civil suit. We find ourselves in agreement with the submission that the imposition of a punishment in consequence of disciplinary proceedings are part of the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings culminate in some order which may either be of exoneration or imposition of punishment. The order imposing punishment is hence as such a part of the disciplinary proceeding as issuance of notice or production of evidence by the parties and recording of finding thereon. In view of Clause (c) aforesaid the court had no jurisdiction to grant an injunction to stay disciplinary proceedings. Thus it is apparent that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to grant an ad-interim injunction of the kind which he did.