BHAIRON PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for declaration that the order No. 507/s (iii) L/gen/md dated 19th August, 1952 of the Director of Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur of the defendant State dismissing the plaintiff from services is irregular, illegal, void and inoperative and that the plaintiff continued to be in the service of the defendant as a Male nurse-cum-compounder entitled to pay and for arrears of salaries amounting to Rs. 2,808/3/.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal may very briefly be stated as follows:

(3.) IN fact, it is improper to attempt a distinction drawn by the District Judge. It must be remembered in this connection that the civil courts do not sit in appeal over the findings of the administrative authorities and ordinarily they do not possess jurisdiction to review the findings of the administrative authorities and to record their own findings and one cannot ordinarily expect a civil court setting aside the dismissal from service on a review of findings on the charges, i. e. , on merits as termed by the District Judge. The dismissal is generally set aside on grounds on non-compliance with the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution of INdia, or Rules relating to Service Conditions, or non-observance of the principles of natural justice. It will be hardly fair to take all these cases from the application of the judgment of the Supreme Court and to limit that judgment to only rare and exceptional cases, where the dismissal from service is set aside on a review of the findings on the charges. I also feel a good deal of hesitation in drawing a distinction between decrees setting aside dismissal for noncompliance with the provisions of the Constitution or Rules relating to Service Conditions and dismissal on review of findings and to term the latter a decree on merits and the former otherwise. A decree is in adjudication on the rights of the parties and should always be treated as on merits. It appears to me that the District Judge has been led into this confusion on his having treated the suit as a continuation of the departmental proceedings which in fact it is not. The District Judge in discussing an illustration which he gave, made the following observations to support his conclusion. He says that if the salary was to be given to him by the court from the date of suspension till the decision of the case, it will amount to exonerating him from the charges. He should be exonerated even though the enquiry against him had not resulted in his exoneration or censure. A decree would mean that the charges against him are effaced and that he is acquitted of the charges by the civil court even though that may be found proved or mostly admitted by him in the departmental inquiry. "