TMI Blog1970 (10) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent to appear before him on March 27, 1954 to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The respondent asked for examination of some more witnesses. This was declined. Thereafter the District Superintendent passed an order dismissing him from service. His appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police on February 4, 1955. An appeal to the Inspector General also failed on April 25, 1956. 2. The respondent filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court challenging the order of his dismissal. This petition was dismissed by Bishan Narain J., on August 29, 1957. The respondent preferred an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent to a Division Bench which was dismissed on August 19, 1958. The benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the appellant had waived the plea of res judicata and that the finding of the Courts below was erroneous on the question of a reasonable opportunity having been given to the respondent in the departmental enquiry. The order of dismissal was declared to be illegal and wrongful. 4. The appellant asked for leave to appeal to this Court which was refused. A petition for special leave was filed to this court against the order of the High Court refusing to give leave. That was granted on October 15, 1965. Another appeal was preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated November 10, 1964. Special leave in this was granted and the delay was condoned. These appeals are Civil Appeals Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision in the previous suit could not operate as res judicata. That was obviously because two of the findings in that suit were in favour of the alienees. Their Lordships are therefore unable to accept this argument. The position in the present case is entirely different. Although no specific plea was taken in the written statement nor was any issue framed before the trial court but the necessary facts were present to the mind of the parties and were gone into by the court. It was stated in the judgment of the trial court that the plaintiff before seeking the remedy of filing a regular suit had moved the High Court in the writ petition. The judgment in the writ petition had been placed on the record. After referring to a decision of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
