1977 (4) TMI 169 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the Deputy Inspector General of Police to dismiss the respondent.
2. Applicability of the principle of constructive res judicata.

Summary:

1. Competency of the Deputy Inspector General of Police to dismiss the respondent:
The respondent, a confirmed Sub-Inspector of Police, was dismissed from service by an order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The respondent challenged this dismissal on the grounds that he was appointed by the Inspector General of Police and thus could not be dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police as per Article 311(1) of the Constitution. The trial court and the District Judge upheld the dismissal, but the High Court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, stating that the Deputy Inspector General of Police was not competent to dismiss him.

2. Applicability of the principle of constructive res judicata:
The High Court ruled that the suit was not barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court committed an error of law in this regard. The principle of estoppel per rem judicatam, a rule of evidence, prohibits the reassertion of a cause of action. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is not permissible to obtain a second judgment for the same civil relief on the same cause of action, as it would lead to conflicting judgments and multiplicity of actions. The Court referred to previous decisions, including *Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Bombay* and *Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam*, to highlight that the principle of constructive res judicata applies to writ petitions as well. The respondent did not raise the plea regarding the incompetence of the Deputy Inspector General of Police in the earlier writ petition, which was within his knowledge. Therefore, it was not permissible for him to challenge his dismissal on this ground in the subsequent suit.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and dismissed the respondent's suit. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.