In a hypothetical case if an employee commits theft of the property of the employer and if the competent criminal Court acquitted him, still it is open for the employer may not retain him in services, though acquitted. The employee cannot claim as a matter of right for reinstatement on the ground of acquittal, since it is the question of confidence of employer in the employee.=THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HONBLE SRI SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1630 OF 2014 23-12-2014 B. Nagaswamy & another...Appellants The State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary,Industries & Commerce (Mines & Geology)Hyderabad & others.Respondents

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HONBLE SRI SANJAY KUMAR
               
WRIT APPEAL No. 1630 OF 2014    

23-12-2014

B. Nagaswamy & another...Appellants

The State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary,Industries & Commerce
(Mines & Geology)Hyderabad & others.Respondents  

Counsel for Appellants  :Sri T. Kumar Babu

Counsel for respondent No.1:Government Pleader for Mines & Geology
Counsel for respondents 2-4: Government Pleader for Revenue (A.P.)
                                                       
<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD          
FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH                

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA            
        AND    
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        
       
WRIT APPEAL No. 1630 of 2014  


Date: 23.12.2014


This Court made the following:

THE HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA            
AND
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

WRIT APPEAL No. 1630 of 2014  


JUDGMENT: (Per the Honble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
        This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2014 passed in W.P.No.36176 of 2014 filed by
the appellant herein.
        The relief sought for in the writ petition is as follows:
         to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one
in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.2
in
issuing the Recovery Certificates against the petitioners herein u/sec. 3(1) of
the
A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 vide letter No.6505/I.O/2012-9, dated
17.09.2014 and Lr.6505/I.O/2012-11, dated 17.09.2014 even before proving the
guilt of the petitioners in Cr.No.119 of 2014 of Veldurthy police station as
illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed
under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.

        As it could be understood on a reading of the aforesaid relief that the
petitioners want to contend that until and unless the competent criminal Court
decides the guilt of an offence in terms of the First Information Report, no
recovery proceedings could be initiated.  In other words, they want to say that
civil
authority should stay the recovery proceedings till the decision of the criminal
Court.
        Learned Single Judge on fact found indisputably that the Deputy Director
of Mines and Geology under Section 3(1) of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act,
1890 issued a Certificate for recovery and the said certificate was forwarded to
the
Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, for recovery of Rs.1,28,21,248/-
from
the petitioners.  Before issuing the said demand notice, a show cause notice
dated
12.12.2013 was issued to the petitioners and after considering the explanation
submitted by them the above demand notice was issued on 22.03.2014 confirming
the amount to be recovered from the petitioners for illegal extraction of iron
ore,
which was quantified at 7,285 metric tons.  The above demand notice is not under
challenge and it has reached its finality.
        Even this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot reopen the matter
as
this Court is of the view that exercise of such power of issuance of demand
notice
is not illegal and cannot be stayed on any ground in absence of challenge.  As
on
today on narration of fact the situation emerges that the petitioners have no
option
except to pay the aforesaid amount.  In other words, in case of failure, the
appropriate authority shall recover the amount in accordance with law.  The
recovery proceedings were issued against the amount quantified for illegal
extraction of the minerals, which admittedly belong to the Government not to the
petitioners.
        Now a case has been registered to take cognizance of the alleged
criminality of the petitioners.  We are of the view that the criminal
proceedings
stand on a different footing from that of the present recovery proceedings
though
the criminal case has its origin from the same fact.  In case of civil liability
the
offender has to discharge the liability compensating the person affected in
accordance with law, but in criminal action in addition to payment of
compensation, the wrong doer is to receive punishment.  Here the admitted
position is that extraction of minerals has been done and it was found as
illegal.
Whether it was done with an intention to commit an offence or not is another
aspect of the matter.  But illegality of extraction of minerals in civil side is
proved.
It is settled position of law that the findings of the criminal Court does not
bind the
civil Court, but reverse it true.  The civil Court will proceed independently of
the
proof of fact of criminality.   In a hypothetical case if an employee commits
theft
of the property of the employer and if the competent criminal Court acquitted
him,
still it is open for the employer may not retain him in services, though
acquitted.
The employee cannot claim as a matter of right for reinstatement on the ground
of
acquittal, since it is the question of confidence of employer in the employee.
In
this case, even after paying compensation for illegal extraction of mineral, the
appellant is still to face criminal consequences.  We think that the learned
Single
Judge has passed correct and just order.  Hence, we do not want to interfere
with
the same.
        The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
        Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.  No
order as to costs.
___________________  
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ  
___________________  
SANJAY KUMAR, J  
Date: 23.12.2014

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.