IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                 CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION                                   CIVIL APPEAL NO.  3176  OF 2009   

(Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 25418/2008)     

State of Punjab ..   Appellant(s)                   

  Versus

Amarjit Singh ..   Respondent(s)                                                           O R D E R

 Leave granted.

This  appeal,  by special  leave, arises from a  judgment dated 6th August,  

2007, delivered by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular  

Second Appeal No. 1274 of 1984.  By the impugned judgment, the High Court has  

reversed   the  order,  dated  17th  December,  1983,  passed  by  the  District  Judge,  

Chandigarh and restored the judgment and the decree passed by the trial Court in  

respondent's suit for declaration.

The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order  

dated  1st  June,  1977,  passed   by  the  General  Manager,  Punjab  Roadways,  

Chandigarh dismissing him from service was illegal, unjust and violative of Article  

311 (2) of the Constitution of India.  On evaluation of the evidence adduced by the  

parties, the Trial Court decreed the appeal preferred by the State against the decree  

was allowed by the first appellate Court; the judgment and decree of the Trial Court  

was reversed and the suit was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the respondent took the  

matter in second appeal to the High Court.  As noted above, the High Court allowed  

the  appeal;  reversed  the  order  passed  by  the  first  Appellate  Court  and  as  a  

consequence, restored the decree passed by the  

..2/-

CA 3176/2009..contd..

: 2 :

trial Court.  Hence this appeal by the State.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of  

the courts below.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the High Court  

has  committed a  serious  illegality  in  reversing  the  decision  of  the  first  Appellate  

Court  without  formulating  a  substantial  question  of  law,  which  according  to   it  

required determination.  It is urged that the decision of the High Court deserves to be  

set aside on this short ground alone.  Learned counsel appearing on behalf  of the  

respondent, on the other hand, submits  that since the respondent has already retired,  

instead of remanding the matter back to the High Court for fresh adjudication, this  

Court may itself decide the case on merits.   

 We are afraid that in the light of the settled legal position, the prayer made  

by learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted.    It is well settled that the  

High  Court  cannot  proceed  to  hear  a  second  appeal  without  formulating  the  

substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so,it acts illegally and  

in abrogation or abdication of the duty cast on Court.  The existence of substantial  

question of law is  the `sine qua non' for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the  

amended Section 100 of the Civil  Procedure Code, 1908, (See: Santosh Hazari  vs.  

Purushottam Tiwardi (D) by Lrs., (2001) 3 SCC 179).    

..3/-

CA 3176/2009..contd..

: 3 :

It is manifest that in the present case, the High Court has failed to discharge  

the statutory obligation cast on it by proceeding to decide the second appeal without

framing a substantial question of law.

Consequently,  the appeal  is  allowed; impugned order  dated 6th August,  

2007  is  set  aside  and  the  matter  is  remitted  to  the  High  Court  for  hearing  and  

deciding the second appeal afresh in accordance with law.

Since the suit was filed as far back as in the year 1979, we would request the  

High Court to  dispose of the appeal expeditiously.                

                                       ...................J.            [ D.K. JAIN ]  

                                       ...................J.            [ B.SUDERSHAN REDDY ]      

                              NEW DELHI, MAY 04, 2009.