http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KRISHAN NIWAS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted. we have heard counsel on both sides.      This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the Punjob & Haryana High Courtm made on March 7. 1996 in Second Appeal No.2662/95.      The admitted  facts are that the respondent was charged for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He was convicted and sentenced to  undergo  imprisonment  for  life.  Thereafter, proceedings were  initiated against him under Article 311(2) of the  Constitution and he was removed from service. Appeal against his  conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. was allowed by the  High Court.  Punishment of  conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to one under Section 325 IPC and he was directed to  undergo rigorous  imprisonment for 1-1/2 years. After undergoing  the imprisonment,  the respondent filed an appeal  before   the  appellate   authority.  The  appellate authority  by   order  dated   March  1,  1989  reduced  the punishment of  removal from  service to  lower scale  of pay drawn by  him and directed that he was not entitled to back- wages. The respondent accepted it and joined duty on June 5, 1989. Subsequently,  he filed  a civil  suit for declaration that his  dismissal from  the service  and reduction of rank and also  the direction  that he  is not entitled to pay the arrears of  wages, were  illegal, the  Addl. District  Judge reversed the  judgment of  the trial  Court and  decreed the suit. In the second appeal, the High Court has confirmed the same. Thus this appeal, by special leave.      Learned counsel  for the  respondent contends  that the offence with  which he  was sentenced  under Section 325 IPC does not  involve his  moral turpitude  and, therefore,  the imposition of  punishment of  reduction of  his scale of pay and also  denial of  back wages, is clearly illegal and that the appellants  are not  entitled to challenge the order. We find no  force in  the  contention.  The  respondent  having accepted the order of the appellate authority and joined the post on  June 5,  1989, it  was not open to him to challenge the order  subsequently. By  his conduct he has accepted the correctness of the order and then acted upon it. Under these circumstances, the  civil Court would not have gone into the merits and decided the matter against the appellants.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    Accordingly, the  appeal is  allowed. The orders of the High Court  and the appellate Court stand set aside and that of the trial Court stands confirmed. No costs.