State of Punjab and Ors. v. Krishan Niwas

Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides. 1135 1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1997] 2 S. C.R. A This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made on March 7, 1996 in Second Appeal No. 26fJ2/95. The admitted facts are that the respondent was charged for an offence under Section 302 l.P.C. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo im­ prisonment for life. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated against him under B Article 311(2) of the Constitution and he was removed from service. Appeal against his conViction under Section 302 I.P.C. was allowed by the High Court. Punishment of conviction under Section 302 !PC was modified to one under Section 325 lPC and he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 years. After undergoing the imprisonment, the respondent filed an C appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority by order dated March 1, 1989 reduced the punishment of removal from service to lower scale of pay drawn by him and directed that he was not entitled to back-wages. The respondent accepted it and joined duty on June 5, 1989. Subsequently, he filed a civil suit for declaration that his dismissal from the service and reduction of rank and also the direction that he i<; not entitled to pay the arrears of wages, D were illegal. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Addi. District Judge reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit. In the second appeal, the High Court has confirmed the same. Thus this appeal, by special leave. E Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the offence with which he was sentenced under Section 325 !PC does not involve his moral turpitude and, therefore, the imposition of punishment of reduction of his scale of pay and also denial of back-wages, is cl..;arly illegal and that the appellants arc not entitled to challenge the order. We find no force in the contention. The respondent having accepted the order of the appellate F authority and joined the post on June 5, 1989, it was not open to challenge the order subsequently. By his conduct he has accepted the con:~ctness of the order and then acted upon it. Under these circumstances, the civil Court would not have gone into the merits and decided the matter against the appellants. Accordingiy, the appeal is allowed. The orders of the High Court and the appellate Court stand set aside and that of the trial Court stands confirmed. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.