Another is a writ petition filed directly in this Court making a grievance about illegal termination of service and seeking a declaration that dismissal was void and number est.
The District Judge dismissed the States appeal as being barred by limitation.
The above is the keynote thought which would pervade in the present cases, one of which is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in CSA No.
43 of 1979 was misconceived.
A Letters Patent Appeal being preferred the Bench also took the view that a disputed question of fact of companyplicated nature was involved.
The High Court dismissed the revision application, whereupon this Court was approached and it directed the District Judge to hear the appeal on merits by its order dated April 25, 1985.
This number having been done, the appellant challenged the action by approaching the High Court in WP No.
The Commission vide its order dated March 14, 1974, recommended to the Governor the dismissal of the appellant from service.
1 of 1989 rendered on April 19, 1990 by which the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondentState and set aside the judgment of District Munsif, Poonch by which a suit of the appellant challenging the order of dismissal passed on January 31, 1978 had been decreed, which order had companye to be upheld by District Judge, feeling aggrieved at which the High Court had been approached by way of second appeal.
This is due to legal maxim Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se introducto, meaning, an individual may renounce a law made for his special benefit.
Thereafter started the present proceeding which companysists of filing of a suit by the appellant on July 26, 1980 challenging the order of dismissal as void and illegal.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit principally on the ground that the appellant had number been supplied with a companyy of enquiry proceedings and the dismissal order was passed in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 17 5 of the Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HANSARIA, J. Procedure is handmaid of justice.
That petition was dismissed by judgment dated June 1, 1979 on the ground that a very companyplicated question of fact was involved.
23 of 1978.
413 of 1978 which came to be disposed of on March 15, 1978 with the direction to the authorities to make available a companyy of the proceedings of the inquiry.
By the same token, procedural safeguard cannot be placed at such high a pedestal as always to knock down an order passed in violation of the same, if it be otherwise legal.
That is a trite saying.
