Skip to content


Anand NaraIn Shukla Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 467 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1979SC1923; [1979(39)FLR325]; 1979LabIC1214; (1980)1SCC252; [1980]1SCR196
AppellantAnand NaraIn Shukla
RespondentState of Madhya Pradesh
Appellant Advocate D.N. Mukherjee and; G.S. Chatterjee, Advs
Respondent Advocate S.K. Gambhir, ; R. Nath and ; Ram Rakhiani, Advs.
Prior historyFrom the Judgment and Order dated April 25, 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Misc. Petition No. 4 of 1967--
Excerpt:
.....witness for giving further evidence regarding facts not mentioned in affidavit permissibility - held, where the evidence now being sought to be introduced by recalling the witness in question, was available at the time when the affidavit of evidence of the witness of the plaintiff was prepared and affirmed and it was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff when the affidavit evidence was prepared, and it was obvious that only after cross-examination of the witness that certain lapse in his evidence came to be noticed which impelled the plaintiff to file the application under order 18 rule 17 c.p.c. the motion for recalling was liable to be dismissed. the power under the provisions of order18 rule 17 is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule........... 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.....
Judgment:
ORDER

N.L. Untwalia, J.

1. The appellant was an Office Superintendent in the office of Agriculture Department. Certain charges were, leveled 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.

2. 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.

3. We find no substance in either 7of 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 and Anr. v. 7. N. Roy Biswas : (1976)IILLJ17SC are not applicable to the facts of the present case and do not help the appellant at all.

4. The reduced amount paid to the appellant for the period of suspension was affirmed by making it a part of the order of reversion 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.


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