Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition No. 918 of 1980, decided on 29th January, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14th April, 1980 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 555 of 19,78).
‑‑ Art. 185 (3) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 (c) ‑Revision ‑Judgment and decree passed by subordinate Courts by acting in exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity‑Held, can be interfered with by High Court under S.1115 (c), C. P. C.
Malik Muhammad Azam, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Mayboo Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 29th January, 1983
The respondent was a permanent employee of the Municipal Committee, Vehari and working as an Additional Octroi Inspector. He was dismissed from service by the Chairman of the Committee. He, accordingly, challenged the order of his dismissal by filing a civil suit, which was dismissed. His appeal before the District Judge, Vehari also failed. He, therefore, moved the High Court by a revision petition. The learned Judge in High Court. in a detailed and elaborate order, after thoroughly perusing the enquiry proceedings, found that the dismissal of the respondent was not based on any evidence and, therefore, an arbitrary exercise of the powers vested in the authority pass ing the order of dismissal. He, therefore, accepted the revision petition and decreed the suit and granted the declaration as prayed for by the respondent. This petition is directed against the above order of the High Court.
The main contention raised by Malik Muhammad Azam Rasul in support of this petition, is that the learned Judge in Chamber has misconceived the scope of a revision petition under section 115 of the C. P. C. and has accepted the revision petition by appreciating the evidence recorded in the enquiry proceedings. This matter was entirely within the power of the departmental authorities, and the learned Judge in the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with such a matter.
We regret we do not agree. The learned Judge has observed in his order that "a dismissal cannot ordinarily be challenged on the ground that evidence did not warrant a drastic action like dismissal, for, on that point the Municipal Committee is the sole Judge. But the powers of the statutory body are always subject to the statute which has constituted it, and must be exercised consistently with the statute, and the Courts have, in appropriate cases, the power to declare an action of the body illegal and ultra vires, even if the action relates to determination of employment of a servant".
We agree with these observations. The learned Judge, therefore, possessed the jurisdiction to interfere under section 115, clause (c) of the Civil Procedure Code, where under the judgment and decree of the subor dinate Courts can be interfered with, if the Courts below have acted the exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The dismissal of an employee without any evidence would clearly be case of exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity if not a case o illegal exercise of jurisdiction itself.
No ground for interference is, therefore, made out. This petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed hereby.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer