ANAND NARAIN SHUKLA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 02-08-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• 
1.96 
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] 
F 
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 
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] 
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. 
, 
, 
., 
• 
• 
, 
-
• • 
A. N. SHUKLA v. M. P. STATE (Untwalia, J.) 
197 
·file Order of the Court was delivered by 
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 
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 
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 
•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 
: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 d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.