Holding

A second disciplinary enquiry on the same charges is permissible after reinstatement, and the allowance paid during suspension may be retained as part of the reversion order.

Summary

Anand Narain Shukla, an Office Superintendent in the Madhya Pradesh Agriculture Department, was initially found guilty in a departmental enquiry and reverted to a lower rank. The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed that order on technical grounds, reinstating him. Subsequently, he was suspended and a fresh enquiry on the same charges was conducted, resulting in another finding of guilt and reversion, with a direction that the allowance paid during suspension could remain. Shukla challenged this second order, but the High Court dismissed his writ petition. The Supreme Court held that a second enquiry on the same charges is permissible despite the earlier reinstatement, and that the allowance paid during suspension may be retained as part of the reversion order, thereby dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether a second departmental enquiry on the same charges can be lawfully conducted after an earlier order of reversion has been quashed and the officer reinstated.
Whether the allowance paid to the officer during the period of suspension can be retained as part of the reversion order.

Subjects

departmental enquirydisciplinary proceedingsreinstatementsuspensionallowancereversionservice lawadministrative law

Judgment

1.96

A
ANAND NARAIN SHUKLA
v. ,
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
,
August 2, 1979

• [N. L. UNTWALIA AND A. P. SEN, JJ.]
Second departmental enquiry, not a bar on the ground it was held on basis
of the sam~ charges of first enquiry which was quashed on technical and legal
ground-Subsistance allowance paid during suspension could be allowed to
stand iti the order of reversion.

C 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 a:Ppellant was reinstated as office superintendent.
Later, fresh enquiry was started after placing him under suspension on the .,
basis of the same old charges. He '\Vas found guilty and again reverted to a
tower rank with a direction in the order of reversion that the allowance paid
D 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

HEID : 1. The observations of this Court in State of Assa1n & Anr. v. J. N.
Ray Biswas, [1976] 2 SCR p. 128 @ 130 to the effect that "once a disciplinary
E case has closed and the official reinstated, presumably on full exoneration, a
chagrined 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 rein-
statement does not bring about any distinction in that regard. The Govern-
ment had to pass that order because the earlier order of reversion had been
F 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 affirmd by nu~king it a part of the order of reversion itself, and is in ordeir.
[197H, 198H]
G
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.
H
S. K. Gambhir, R. Nath and Miss Ram Rakhiani for the
Respondent.
A. N. SHUKLA v. M. P. STATE (Untwalia, J.) 197

·file Order of the Court was delivered by A
UNTWALIA, J.-The appellant was an Office Superintendent in
the office oi 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 cfiling a Writ Petition in the Madhya B
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 Superinten"
dent. But shortly after, he was put under suspension and fresh pro-
ceedings were started on the basis of the same old charges. In the c
second proceedings, he has been found guilty of certain charges, the
dttails of which are not necei;sary to be mentioned in our judg-
ment. 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 D
•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 rever-
sion was quashed by the High Court and after the appellant was
E
: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 F
ground. On merits, a second enquiry could be held. It was rightly
held. The order of reinstatement does not bring about any distinc-
tion in that regard. The Government had to pass that order be-
cause 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 aganist the appel· G
•• lant. 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: appel-
lant at all.
The reduced amount paid to the appellant for the period of sus- H
pension was affirmed by making it a part of the order of reversion
(I) [1976] 2 S.C.R. 128.
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] i S.C.R.

A itself. That being so, the second point urged by the counsel is also
of no substance. For the reasons, stated above, we dismiss th!S
appeal but since the appellant has already retired from service, we
make no .order as to costs.
•

V.D.K. Appeal dismissed. ., ~

-·

•
•