V.K. Jain vs Union Of India And Ors.
1995 Latest Caselaw 114 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

(1) Petitioner has sought leave of the court to amend the petition by filing this application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2) On 22.5.1992 writ petition came to be filed by petitioner wherein he challenged and sought the setting aside of an order of suspension, suspending him from the Post of Director (Finance) of the respondent Corporation and quashing of enquiry proceedings initiated against him. By way of interim relief the petitioner prayed for staying the enquiry proceedings as also the order of suspension.

(3) After notice, the writ petition came up for admission on 29.10.1992 before a Division Bench of this court. While issuing rule, application for stay (CM 3838/92) was disposed of. The court declined to stay the order of suspension but directed that the enquiry may proceed but whatever might be the report of the enquiry, the same be submitted to the court and be not implemented without the orders of the court.

(4) Cm 3891/93 was moved by the petitioner informing the court that despite the fact that enquiry had been completed, report had not been submitted to the court. On 26.5.1993 it was recorded that the enquiry had been completed on 18.1.1993 and the Learned counsel for the respondent was allowed time to produce copies of the enquiry report in court. Enquiry report was submitted and a copy supplied to the petitioner. Respondents thereafter moved another application, Cm 6262/93 seeking permission to proceed ahead on the enquiry report. Statement was made by the petitioner's counsel that without prejudice to the contention raised in civil writ petition, the application may be allowed and the disciplinary authority may be permitted to proceed ahead with the enquiry. In view of the statement, the application was allowed on 27.10.1993. After narrating these facts, the petitioner in the application for amendment has stated that an order has now been made on 28.7.1994 imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner is now seeking amendment in the writ petition to challenge this order. This application is vehemently opposed by the respondents on the ground that allowing the amendment will amount to changing the entire complexion of the petition as also the cause of action. Petitioner has otherwsie got independent remedy of challenging the order by filing a separate petition.

(5) There is no manner of doubt that the amendment, which is now sought by the petitioner is as a result of the happenings which have' taken place during the pendency of the writ petition. Proceedings as originally initiated by the petitioner were for quashing the order of suspension as also the initiation of proceedings for enquiry, on number of grounds, including the one that the authority which took action was not competent to initiate proceedings. The basic challenge to the writ petition is against the initiation of departmental proceedings due to which, according to the petitioner, further proceedings, if any, are void and liable to be quashed. Cause of action for the petitioner, thus, will continue to survive even on the passing the final order, which has now been passed, imposing major penalty.

(6) The basic principles, which deserve to be noticed, while dealing with applications for amendment are well known and need not be reiterated, namely, the amendment sought should not work injustice to the other side, multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided, as far as possible, and all amendments which avoid such multiplicity should be allowed and all amendments will generally be allowed when they. are necessary for determination of the real controversy of the matter. In M/s M. Laxmi & Co. v. Dr. Anant R. Deshpande & Another the apex court con sid the necessity for a court in taking into consideration subsequent events to shorten the litigation and to preserve rights of both parties, in order to subserve the ends of justice. It was held that: THE Court can take notice of subsequent events. These cases are where the court finds that because of altered circumstances like devolution of interest it is necessary to shorten litigation. Where the original relief has become inappropriate by subsequent events, the Court can take notice of such changes. If the court finds that the judgment of the Court cannot be carried into effect because of change of circumstances the Court takes notice of the same. If the Court finds that the matter is no longer in controversy the court also takes notice of such event. If the property which is the subject-matter of suit is no longer available the court will take notice of such event. The court takes notice of subsequent events to shorten litigation, to preserve rights of both the parties and to sub serve the ends of justice."

(7) Applying the aforementioned principle there is no manner of doubt that no loss, harm or prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent in case in these very proceedings, the petitioner is permitted to challenge the final order passed on 28.7.1994 since majority of the grounds for challenge will be the same which are the subject matter of the instant petition.

(8) Consequently the application is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to amend the petition, as pro posed. Amended petition be filed within a period of two weeks. Counter affidavit be filed within four weeks thereafter. Matter thereafter will be posted for appropriate orders before appropriate bench on 3.4.1995.