Sh. Parmodh Chand Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Through Its Managing Director and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - relieving - opportunity of hearing - present appeal filed against order relieving petitioner from his job as driver on ground of his negligence in driving and, therefore, seeking direction to re-engage him in service as driver - held, according to petitioner, accident occurred due to bad weather and faulty vehicle which he was asked to drive inspite of his protest - appellate authority has not considered this aspect of matter - defences taken by petitioner have not been considered at all - considering impugned order, it is clear that it is not speaking order - no reasons have been assigned for holding that petitioner's appeal is without any substance - hence, impugned order is liable to be quashed and direction issued to respondent to decide appeal by affording adequate opportunity of hearing to petitioner - code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. order 14, rule 2 [as amended by amending act of 1976]: [v.k. gupta, cj, deepak gupta & surjit singh, jj] preliminary issue of law and fact court framing all issues both of law and facts together and also tried all the issues together, including the issue relating to jurisdiction of court held, except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule (2) of rule 2 of order 14 where a court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, clearly and explicitly in situations where the court has framed all issues together, both of law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the court to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. this course of action is not available to a court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. sub-rule (1) clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the court covering all the issues framed in the suit.orderthe services of shri parmodh chand who was appointed as a driver vice office order no. hrtc/dmdsl/ 1-88/82 dated 2.4.1991 and now is on probation are no longer required by this corporation. general manager himachal road transport corpn.,dharamsala.6. petitioner preferred an appeal (annexure a-4) before the appropriate authority which stood decided in terms of order dated 19.5.1993 (annexure a-5), contents of which are also reproduced as under: office

Judgment:
ORDER

The services of Shri Parmodh Chand who was appointed as a driver vice office order No. HRTC/DMDSL/ 1-88/82 dated 2.4.1991 and now is on probation are no longer required by this Corporation.

General Manager

Himachal Road Transport Corpn.,

Dharamsala.

6. Petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure A-4) before the appropriate authority which stood decided in terms of order dated 19.5.1993 (Annexure A-5), contents of which are also reproduced as under:

OFFICE