In Uttar Pradesh Nawab Hussain was a Sub Inspector of Police. Two cases were registered against Nawab Hussain under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A complaint was made against him and was investigated by Inspector Suraj Singh who submitted his all report to the Superintendent of Police (SP). Inspector Suraj Singh investigated as well as the Nawab Hussain was dismissed from service by an order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police.
He filed an appeal but it was dismissed as soon as He filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court for quashing the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the assertion against him and the action taken against him. It was dismissed and Nawab Hussain filed a suit in the court in which he challenged the order of his dismissal on the ground inter alia that he had been appointed by the Inspector General of Police and that the Deputy Inspector General of Police was not capable to dismiss him by virtue of the provisions of article 311 (1) of the Constitution. The State of Uttar Pradesh traversed the claim in the suit on several grounds including the plea that the suit was barred by res judicata as all the matters in issue in this case had been raised both in the writ petition. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the Deputy Inspector General of Police would be deemed to be the plaintiffs appointing authority. It held that the suit was not barred by the principle of res judicata. The District Judge up-held the trial court's judgment and dismissed this appeal. The Nawab Hussain preferred a second appeal which has been allowed by the challenged judgment of the High Court and the suit has been decreed. The State of Uttar Pradesh has come to this appeal.
The High Court that the suit was not barred by the principle of constructive res judicata and that the Nawab Hussain could not be dismissed by an order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police as he had been appointed by the Inspector General of Police. The principle of estoppel per rem judicatam is a rule of evidence. It may be told that the broader rule of evidence which prohibits the reassertion of a cause of action. This doctrine is based on two theories first is the finality and conclusiveness of judicial decisions for the final termination of disputes in the general interest of the community as a matter of public policy and second is the interest of the individual that he should be protected from multiplication of litigation. It serves a public and a private purpose by impeding the reopening of matters which have once been adjudicated upon. It is thus not permissible to obtain a second judgment for the same civil relief on the same cause of action for otherwise the spirit of contentiousness may give rise to conflicting judgments of equal authority lead to multiplicity of actions and bring the administration of justice into disgrace. It is the cause of action which gives rise to an action as well as that is why it is necessary for the courts to recognised that a cause of action which results in a judgment must lose its identity as well as vitality as well as merge in the judgment when pronounced. It cannot survive the judgment or give rise to another cause of action on the same facts. This is known as the general principle of res judicata.
The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the High Court committed
an error of law in deciding the objection regarding the bar of res judicata. The
appeal is allowed the challenged judgment of the High Court is set aside and
the Nawab Hussain's suit is dismissed.
Post a Comment