Case: Union Of India Vs. Nanak Singh

3. Nanak Singh thereafter instituted suit No. 218 of 1963 in the Court of the Senior Sub- Judge, Delhi, for a declaration that the order terminating his employment was made by an authority lower than the authority competent to pass that order and that the order was wanting in bona-fides" and was on that account illegal null and void", and for an order declaring him entitled to be treated as continuing in employment and on duty and entitled to all the benefits of service as if he had not been removed from employment. This suit was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. In appeal, the Additional District Judge, Delhi reversed the decree passed by the Court of First Instance, and declared that the order of Mr. Kane dated January 10, 1958, terminating the employment of Nanak Singh was void and inoperative and that Nanak Singh was entitled to be treated as in service and on duty since the date of the order. A second appeal against that judgment by the Union of India was dismissed by Bedi, J. The learned Judge was of the view that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the writ petition did not operate to prevent Nanak Singh from reagitating the question about the authority of Mr. Kane to terminate his employment, and that on the materials placed before the Court there was no evidence that authority had been delegated to Mr. Kane to Exercise that power. Against that order, with special leave, the Union of India has appealed to this Court.

Reasoning:
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.