STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SODHA SULCHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises for our decision a question of law of general importance under Secs. 123 and 162 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (hereafter called the Act. ) Originally the same point had been raised in another civil appeal before this Court, Civil Appeal No. 241 of 1955. The said appeal was the result of a dispute between Dowager Lady Dinbai Dinshaw Petit on the one hand and the Union of India and the State of Bombay on the other. Having regard to the importance of the point raised by the said appeal a Division Bench of this Court before whom it first came for hearing directed that it should be placed for disposal before a Constitution Bench, and accordingly it was placed before us. The appellant and the respondent in the present appeal then applied for permission to intervene because the same point arose for decision in this appeal as well; that is how this appeal was also placed before us to be heard after the Bombay appeal. After the Bombay appeal was heard for some days parties to the said appeal amicably settled their dispute and a decree by consent was passed. In the result the point of general importance raised by the said appeal fell to be considered in the present appeal; and so the appellant and the respondent in the said appeal asked for permission to intervene in the present appeal, and we directed that the arguments urged by Mr. Viswanatha Sastri and Mr. Seervai, for the appellant and the State of Bombay respectively, should be treated as arguments urged by interveners in the present appeal. Mr. Bindra, who appears for the appellant State of Punjab in the present appeal, and Mr. Gopal Singh who represents the respondent Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, have substantially adopted the arguments urged by Mr. Seervai and Mr. Sastri respectively and have also addressed us on the special facts in their appeal; that is how the point of law in regard to the scope and effect of Secs. 123 and 162 of the Act has to be decided in the present appeal.

(2.) This appeal has been brought to this Court by special leave granted by this Court, and it arises from a suit filed by the respondent against the appellant on 5/05/1958. It appears that the respondent was a District and Sessions Judge in the erstwhile State of Pepsu. He was removed from service on 7/04/1953, by an order passed by the President of India who was then in charge of the administration of the said State. The respondent then made a representation on 18/05/1955. This representation was considered by the Council of Ministers of the said State on 28/09/1955, because in the meantime the President's rule had come to an end and the administration of Pepsu was entrusted to the Council of Ministers. The Council expressed its views in the form of a Resolution on the representation of the respondent; but before taking any action it invited the advice of the Public Service Commission. On receiving the said advice the Council again considered the said representation on 8/03/1956, and views on the merits of the representation were expressed by the Members of the Council. These were recorded in minutes of the proceedings. Finally, on 11/08/1956, the representation was considered over again by the Council, and it reached a final conclusion in respect of it. In accordance with the said conclusion an order was passed which was communicated to the respondent. The order read thus: "reference his representation dated the 18/05/1955, against the order of his removal from service; the State Government have ordered that he may be re-employed on some suitable post".

(3.) After this order was communicated to him the respondent filed the present suit against the appellant and claimed a declaration, inter alia, that his removal from service on 7/04/1953, was illegal, void and inoperative and prayed for the recovery of Rs. 62,700-6-0 as arrears of his salary. The appellant disputed the respondent's claim on several grounds. Issues were accordingly framed by the trial judge on 27/01/1959. Meanwhile the respondent had filed an application under O. 14, R. 4 as well as O. 11, R. 14 of the Civil Procedure Code for the production of documents mentioned in the list annexed to the application. The trial court issued notice against the appellant for the production of the said documents. In reply to the notice Mr. E. N. Mangat Rai, Chief Secretary of the appellant, made an affidavit claiming privilege under Sec. 123 of the Act in respect of certain documents whose production had been ordered, and gave reasons in support of the claim. On the same day Mr. Mangat Rai made another affidavit in which he gave reasons for claiming similar privilege in respect of certain other documents. The statements made in these affidavits were challenged by the respondent who submitted a counter affidavit. After the affidavits had thus been filed by the parties the trial court heard their arguments on the question of privilege, and on 27/08/1959, it upheld the claim of privilege made by the appellant for the production of some documents, and accepted the reasons given by Mr. Mangat Rai in support of the said claim of privilege.