Valmiki J. Mehta, J. - (1.) (Oral) - This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the Judgment of the First Appellant Court dated 10.5.2014 by which the first appellate court allowed the first appeal filed under Section 96 CPC by the respondents herein against the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 8.5.2012. The First Appellate Court by its Judgment dated 10.5.2014 has set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 8.5.2012 which had decreed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff questioning his dismissal from services on the basis of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. The effect of the impugned judgment of the first appellate court is that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff, and which was decreed by the trial court by the Judgment dated 8.5.2012, was dismissed. The first appellate court dismissed the suit by holding that the Order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 20.12.1996 challenged by the appellant/plaintiff in the suit was not a proper legal challenge because the Order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 20.12.1996 had merged into the Orders passed by the Appellate Authority dated 25.9.1997 and the Revisional Authority dated 20.4.1999, and finally the Order of the Central Government dated 30.2.2003 (this is a non-existent order as stated hereinafter) and since the suit only challenged the Order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 20.12.1996 and not the orders of the higher authorities in which the order of the Disciplinary Authority merged, therefore, the suit was mis-conceived and liable to be dismissed for failing to challenge the Orders of the Appellate Authority dated 25.9.1997, Revisional Authority dated 20.4.1999 and the suo moto Order of the Central Government dated 30.2.2003.
(2.) There are two main issues to be decided with respect to the present second appeal. First is whether the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the Orders passed by the Departmental Authorities filed on 15.7.2003 is or is not within limitation. Related with this first issue, and which aspect has transpired during the course of hearing of this second appeal is that even if the limitation for filing of the suit is to be taken from the Order of the Central Government dated 30.2.2003, whether the suit is not maintainable and is filed within limitation because there does not at all exist any Order of the Central Government dated 30.2.2003. The second issue to be examined is whether the suit itself was not maintainable being barred by res judicata on account of the orders of the departmental authorities which were statutory authorities, could only have been challenged by means of filing of proper petition under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India, and which was not done.
(3.) At the outset, let me reproduce Sections 8 and 9 of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CISF Act'), and which provisions provides for the orders to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, Revisional Authority and the Central Government, and which provisions read as under:- 8. Dismissal, removal etc. of enrolled members of the Force:- Subject to the provisions of article 311 of the Constitution and to such rules as the Central Government may make under this Act supervisory officer may - (i) dismiss, remove, order of compulsory retirement or reduce in rank any enrolled member of the Force whom he thinks remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same; or (ii) award any one or more of the following punishments to any enrolled member of the Force who discharges his duty in a careless or negligent manner, or who by any act of his own renders himself unfit for the discharge thereof, namely:- (a) fine to any amount not exceeding seven days pay or reduction in pay scale; (b) drill, extra guard, fatigue or other duty. (c) removal from any office of distinction or deprivation of any special emolument. (d) withholding of increment of pay with or without cumulative effect. (e) withholding of promotion. (f) Censure. 9. Appeal and revision:- (1) Any enrolled member of the Force aggrieved by an order made under section 8 may within thirty days from the date on which the order is communicated to him prefer an appeal against the order to such authority as may be prescribed, and subject to the provisions of sub section (2A), sub section (2B) and subsection (3), the decision of the said authority thereon shall be final: Provided that the prescribed authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filling the appeal in time. (2) In disposing of an appeal the prescribed authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. (2A) Any enrolled members of the Force aggrieved by an order passed in appeal under sub-section (1) may, within a period of six months from the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer a revision petition against the order to such authority as may be prescribed and in disposing of the revision petition, the said authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. (2B) The authority, as may be prescribed for the purpose of this sub-section, on a revision petition preferred by an aggrieved enrolled member of the Force or suo-moto, may call for, within a prescribed period, the records of any proceeding under section 8 of sub-section(2) or sub-section (2A) and such authority may, after making inquiry in the prescribed manner, and subject to the provisions of this Act, pass such order thereon as it thinks fit. (3) The Central Government may call for an examine the record of any proceeding under section 8 or under sub-section (2), sub section (2A) or sub section (2B) of this section and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon as it thinks fit: Provided that no order imposing an enhanced penalty under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) shall be made unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard has been given to the person affected by such order. ";