Punjab & Ors Vs. Krishan Niwas 
INSC 296 (14 March 1997)
RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
O R D
E R Leave granted. we have heard counsel on both sides.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.