http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: ANAND NARAIN SHUKLA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/08/1979

BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. BENCH: UNTWALIA, N.L. SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1979 AIR 1923            1980 SCR  (2) 196  1980 SCC  (1) 252  CITATOR INFO :  R          1981 SC 858  (4)

ACT:      Second departmental  enquiry not a bar on the ground it was held on basis of the same charges of first enquiry which was  quashed   on  technical  and  legal  ground-Subsistence allowance paid  during suspension  could be allowed to stand in the order of reversion.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant, an office Superintendent was reverted to a lower  rank after  finding him guilty of some charges held in a  departmental enquiry.  The said orders were quashed by the High  Court on  the ground that the enquiry held was not proper and  legal. The  appellant was  reinstated as  office superintendent.  Later,  fresh  enquiry  was  started  after placing him  under suspension  on the  basis of the same old charges. He  was found  guilty and  again reverted  to lower rank with  a direction  in the  order of  reversion that the allowance paid  to him during the period of suspension could remain intact.  The writ  petition filed  by  the  appellant against the said orders was dismissed.      Dismissing the appeal by certificate, the Court ^      HELD: 1.  The observations  of this  Court in  State of Assam &  Anr. v.  J. N. Ray Biswas [1976] 2 SCR p. 128 @ 130 to the  effect that "once a disciplinary case has closed and the official  reinstated, presumably  on full exoneration, a chagrinned Government  cannot restart  the exercise  in  the absence of  a specific  power to review or revise, vested by rules in  some authority"  are not applicable to the fact of the Present case. [197 G-H]      The earlier  order was  quashed on  a technical ground. The  order   of  reinstatement  does  not  bring  about  any distinction in  that regard. The Government had to pass that order because  the  earlier  order  of  reversion  had  been quashed by the High Court. Without reinstating the appellant it would  have been  difficult, perhaps unlawful, to start a fresh enquiry against the appellant. [197F-G]      (b) The  reduced amount  paid to  the appellant for the period of suspension was affirmed by making in a part of the order of reversion itself, and is in order. [197H, 198H]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 467 of 1970.      From the  Judgment and  order dated  25-4-1969  of  the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 4/67.      D. N. Mukherjee and G. S. Chatterjee for the Appellant.      S. K.  Gambhir, R.  Nath and  Miss Ram Rakhiani for the Respondent. 197      The order of the Court was delivered by      UNTWALIA, J.-The appellant was an office Superintendent in the  office of  Agriculture Department.  Certain  charges were levelled  against him.  An enquiry  was purported to be held. After  finding him  guilty of  some  charges,  he  was reverted to a lower rank. He challenged that order by filing a Writ Petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court . That Writ Petition was  allowed and the order of reversion was quashed on the  ground that  the enquiry  held was  not  proper  and legal. In view of the order of the High Court, the appellant was   reinstated    in   his   original   post   of   office Superintendent.  But   shortly  after,   he  was  put  under suspension and  fresh proceedings  were started on the basis of the  same old  charges. In the second proceedings, he has been found  guilty of  certain charges, the details of which are not  necessary to  be mentioned  in our judgment. He was again reverted  and it  was also directed in the order  that the allowance  paid to  him during  the period of suspension could remain  intact. The  appellant  filed  a  second  Writ Petition in  the High  Court to challenge the fresh order of reversion. The  High Court  has dismissed his Writ Petition. Hence this appeal in this Court on grant of a certificate by the High Court.      Mr. D.  N. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant urged only  two points before us; (1) that after the earlier order of  reversion was  quashed by the High Court and after the appellant  was reinstated, no second enquiry on the very same charges  could be held and no second order of reversion could be legally and validly ’, made; and (2) that appellant was  entitled   to  the   full  salary  for  the  period  of suspension.      We find  no substance  in either of the points urged on behalf of  the appellant.  The earlier  order was quashed on the technical  ground. On  merits, a second enquiry could be held. It  was rightly  held. The order of reinstatement does not  bring   about  any  distinction  in  that  regard.  The Government had  to pass that order because the earlier order of reversion  had been  quashed by  the High  Court. Without reinstating the  appellant, it  would  have  been  difficult perhaps unlawful,  to start  a  fresh  enquiry  against  the appellant. The  observations  of  this  Court  in  the  last paragraph of  the judgment in State of Assam & Anr. v. J. N. Roy Biswas  are not  applicable to  the facts of the present case and do not help the appellant at all.      The reduced amount paid to the appellant for the period of suspension  was affirmed by making it a part of the order of reversion 198 itself. That being so, the second point urged by the counsel is also,  of no substance. For the reasons, stated above, we dismiss this  appeal but  since the,  appellant has  already retired from service, we make no order as to costs. V.D.K.                                     Appeal dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

199