Delhi High Court
R.S.Panwar vs The Food Corporation Of India & ... on 30 January, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 8739/2014
% 30th January, 2015
R.S.PANWAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kartickay Mathur, Adv.
versus
THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
filed by the petitioner, the erstwhile employee of respondent No.1-Food
Corporation of India, basically impugning the order of the employer dated
8.11.1996 whereby, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of demotion
to the post of Assistant Manager (General) at the lowest grade applicable to
the said post with effect from 8.11.1996. This order dated 8.11.1996 was
passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority vide its order
dated 9.5.1997 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.
WP(C) 8739/2014 Page 1 of 4
2. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Departmental Authorities
before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing a writ petition being
W.P.(C) No. 9463/1997 and this writ petition vide order dated 19.12.2007
was directed to be treated as a suit, and consequently, the disputes with
respect to challenge to the orders passed by the Departmental Authorities
were tried in the suit. This civil suit was decided against the petitioner vide a
judgment dated 10.03.2008. The petitioner preferred a first appeal against
the said judgment before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, being
Civil Appeal No. 91/2008, who partly allowed the appeal and modified the
order passed by the department and held that only a major penalty could
have been imposed. The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional
District Judge before the Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing a Regular
Second Appeal No.400/2008, and the respondent No.1/employer also filed a
cross-appeal being Regular Second Appeal No.1898/2009, and both the
appeals were dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated 8.3.2010.
The cross SLPs filed by both the parties against the order of the High Court
dated 8.3.2010 were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 8.7.2010.
3. In my opinion, therefore, the disputes which arose with respect to
challenge by the petitioner to the orders passed by the Departmental
WP(C) 8739/2014 Page 2 of 4
Authorities achieved finality in view of the decisions of the civil courts. A
decision of the civil court operates as res judicata. The Doctrine of res
judicata is to ensure that matters are not repeatedly re-agitated and there
should be finality with respect to disputes.
4. The petitioner after not succeeding in the civil courts, which
continued from the original stage to the stage of first appeal, second appeal
and then the Supreme Court, thereafter filed a review petition before the
Board of Directors of the respondent no.1 on 28.3.2011. Since this review
petition was not being decided, the petitioner approached this Court by filing
a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3522/2012 and this Court directed the
respondent no.1 to dispose of the review petition. The Board of Directors in
the review petition have rejected the claim of the petitioner and confirmed
the decisions passed by the Departmental Authorities.
5. In my opinion, the filing of the review petition by the petitioner before
the Board of Directors was itself flawed because the Board of Directors of
the respondent no.1 had no authority or jurisdiction to set aside the
judgments passed by the civil courts and which had attained finality on the
SLPs filed by both the parties being dismissed by the Supreme Court. The
doctrine of res judicata cannot be washed away by the petitioner simply on
WP(C) 8739/2014 Page 3 of 4
the ground that Board of Directors have taken a fresh decision dated
22.11.2012 and which is sought to be questioned in the present writ petition.
6. The review petition filed by the petitioner before the Board of
Directors in accordance with the rules would have been maintainable only if
the review petition was immediately filed after the decision of the appellate
authority on 9.5.1997, however, once civil suit is thereafter filed challenging
the orders of the departmental proceedings and the petitioner is not
successful in the civil proceedings right till the Supreme Court, the doctrine
of res judicata has to necessarily to come into play and the same will
prevent not only filing of the review petition by the petitioner and nor will
the same give any ground to the petitioner to question the decision now
passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent No.1 on 22.11.2012,
rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner.
7. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.
JANUARY 30, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
srb
