Skip to content


State of Orissa and Others Vs. Ramanath Patnaik - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Constitution;Service

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided On

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 2673 of 1986

Judge

Reported in

AIR1997SC2452; 84(1997)CLT355(SC); JT1997(4)SC660; (1997)IILLJ1022SC; (1997)5SCC181; [1997]3SCR528

Appellant

State of Orissa and Others

Respondent

Ramanath Patnaik

Appellant Advocate

 P.N. Misra, Adv

Respondent Advocate

 N.R. Choudhary, Adv.

Cases Referred

Slate of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan

Prior history

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.2.86 of the Orissa High Court in S.A. No.295 of 1985

Excerpt:


- section 12(1) & securities and exchange board of india (stock brokers and sub-brokers) rules, 1992, rule 3 & securities and exchange board of india (stock brokers and sub-brokers) regulations, 1992, regulation 25: [dr. arijit pasayat & lokeshwar singh panta, jj] violation of section 12(1) read with rule 3 by brokers/sub-brokers - powers of board/tribunal held, only penalty is provided under act and regulations is of either suspension or cancellation of certificate of registration. even board has no power to impose any monetary penalty. no power is conferred on tribunal to travel beyond areas covered by section 12 and rule 3. when something is to be done statutorily in a particular way, it can only be done that way. there is no scope for taking shelter under discretionary power. tribunal has no jurisdiction to modify sentence imposed by board. - venugopalan (1994)6scc302 .therein, this court, has held thus :it is well known that the service record would be opened after the government servant enters the service record would be countersigned by the government servant......suit, but on appeal, the additional district judge, bhubaneshwar decreed the suit. as stated earlier, the second appeal was dismissed by the high court. thus, this appeal by special leave.3. the controversy is no longer res integra. this court has considered the entire case jaw on this point in slate of tamil nadu v. t.v. venugopalan : (1994)6scc302 . therein, this court, has held thus :it is well known that the service record would be opened after the government servant enters the service record would be countersigned by the government servant. the date of birth as entered in the school record is the source of material for making entry in the service record.4. when entry was made in the service record and when he was in service, he did not make any attempt to have the service record corrected. therefore, any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no avail. the high court, therefore, has committed manifest error of law in refusing to entertain the second appeal.5. the appeal is accordingly allowed. the judgment of the high court stands set aside. the judgment and decree of the appellate court stands reversed and that of the trial court stands confirmed. no costs.

Judgment:


K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.

1. This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court, made on February 21, 1986 in Second Appeal No. 767/81, dismissing the second appeal in limine.

2. Admittedly, the respondent joined the State service as a Clerk on 21.3.1944. According to the Matriculation Certificate produced at the time of the entry into the service, his date of birth is January 1, 1921. On attaining the superannuation, he retired from service on 31.12.1976. He filed a suit in the year 1981 on the basis of the rejection of his representation for declaration that his correct date of birth is January 1, 1925 and not January 1, 1921. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but on appeal, the Additional District Judge, Bhubaneshwar decreed the suit. As stated earlier, the second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

3. The controversy is no longer res Integra. This Court has considered the entire case Jaw on this point in Slate of Tamil Nadu v. T.V. Venugopalan : (1994)6SCC302 . Therein, this Court, has held thus :

It is well known that the service record would be opened after the government servant enters the service record would be countersigned by the government servant. The date of birth as entered in the school record is the source of material for making entry in the service record.

4. When entry was made in the service record and when he was in service, he did not make any attempt to have the service record corrected. Therefore, any amount of evidence produced subsequently would be of no avail. The High Court, therefore, has committed manifest error of law in refusing to entertain the second appeal.

5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The judgment and decree of the appellate Court stands reversed and that of the trial Court stands confirmed. No Costs.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //