Case: Union Of India Vs. Nanak Singh

that order, with special leave, the Union of India has appealed to this Court. 4. The first question which falls to be determined in this appeal is whether the judgment of the High Court in the writ petition operated as res judicata in the Civil Suit filed by Nanak Singh. Nanak Singh, it may be recalled claimed relief on two alternative grounds -(1) infringement of the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution, and (2) absence of authority in the Officer who terminated his employment under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service. Rules, 1949. Each ground, if successful was sufficient to support an order in his favour. Gurdev Singh, J., decided both the grounds in favour of Nanak Singh The High Court reversed the judgment of Gurdev Singh, J., and dismissed the petition filed by Nanak Singh: thereby the High Court must be deemed to have rejected troth the grounds on which the petition was founded. On the plea that the order of termination of his employment amounted to dismissal, the High Court gave detailed reasons and observed that by the termination of his employment, Nanak Singh was not visited with any punishment. The second plea about the authority of Mr. Kane also must be deemed to have been negatived by the High Court. For the High Court could not without reversing the judgment of Gurdev Singh. J., have dismissed the petition. It is true that in the judgment of the Court of Appeal some obscure statement has been made, and it is difficult to appreciate the true purport thereof. But what operates as res judicata is the decision and not the reasons given by the Court in support of the decision. We are unable to agree with counsel for Nanak Singh, that the High Court reserved to Nanak Singh the right to agitate the question about the authority of Mr. Kane in a separate suit. There is no such express reservation, and it cannot be implied, for such an implication is plainly inconsistent with the find order passed by the High Court Even assuming that the High Court was in error in holding that the appeal could be decided only on the first point, the order dismissing the petition must still operate as res judicata in respect of both the points on which the petition was founded. 5. This Court in Gulabchand Chhotalal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153 observed that the provisions of S. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not exhaustive with respect to all earlier decision operating as res judicata between the same parties on the same matter in controversy in a subsequent regular suit, and on the general principle of res judicata, any previous decision on a matter in controversy, decided after full contest or after affording fair opportunity to the parties to prove their case by a Court competent to decide it, will operate as res judicata in a subsequent regular suit. It is not necessary that the Court deciding the matter formerly be competent to decide the subsequent suit or that the former proceeding and the subsequent suit have the same subject-matter. There is no good reason to preclude, such decisions on matters in controversy in writ proceedings under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution from operating as res judicata in subsequent regular suits on the same matters in controversy between the same parties and thus to give limited effect to the principle of the finality of decisions after full contest. The Court in Gulabchands case, AIR 1965 SC 1153 left open the question whether the principle of constructive res judicata may be invoked by a party to the subsequent suit on the ground that a matter which might or ought to have been raised in the earlier proceeding but was not so raised therein, must still be deemed to have been decided. 6. In the order of the High Court in appeal from he order in the writ petition operated constructively as res judicata, it might have been necessary to consider the question which was left open by the Court in Gulabchands case, AIR 1965 SC 1153 . But in our view the judgment in the previous case operates by express decision as res judicata. It is true that in order that the previous adjudication between the parties may operate as res judicata, the question must have been heard and decided or that the parties must have an opportunity of raising their contentions thereon. In the present case, Gurdev Singh, J., dealt with the question in some detail and held that Mr. Kane had no authority to terminate the employment of Nanak Singh. The High Court in appeal thought that the appeal could be disposed of only on the first ground, and they recorded no express finding on the second ground. But once the appeal was allowed and the petition was dismissed, the dismissal of the petition operated as a rejection of both the grounds on which it was founded. The judgment of the Privy Council on which reliance was placed by counsel for Nanak Singh - Abdullah Ashger Ali Khan v. Ganesh Das, AIR 1917 PC 201 has in our judgment no application. In that case a suit was dismissed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner on the view that its constitution was defective, and no opinion on the merits of the dispute between the parties was expressed. The judgment of the Judicial Commissioner was held not to operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the parties to the previous suit, because the dispute was not decided on its merits in the previous suit expressly or even by implication. It is unnecessary on that view to adjudicate upon the question whether Mr. Kane had authority to determine the employment of Nanak Singh. 7. The appeal is allowed and the decree passed by the High Court is set aside. The decree passed by the Court of First Instance is restored.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In the present case, Gurdev Singh, J., dealt with the question in some detail and held that Mr. Kane had no authority to terminate the employment of Nanak Singh. The High Court in appeal thought that the appeal could be disposed of only on the first ground, and they recorded no express finding on the second ground. But once the appeal was allowed and the petition was dismissed, the dismissal of the petition operated as a rejection of both the grounds on which it was founded. The judgment of the Privy Council on which reliance was placed by counsel for Nanak Singh - Abdullah Ashger Ali Khan v. Ganesh Das, AIR 1917 PC 201 has in our judgment no application. In that case a suit was dismissed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner on the view that its constitution was defective, and no opinion on the merits of the dispute between the parties was expressed. The judgment of the Judicial Commissioner was held not to operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the parties to the previous suit, because the dispute was not decided on its merits in the previous suit expressly or even by implication. It is unnecessary on that view to adjudicate upon the question whether Mr. Kane had authority to determine the employment of Nanak Singh7. The appeal is allowed and the decree passed by the High Court is set aside. The decree passed by the Court of First Instance is restored.