LexDEVENDRA PRATAP NARAIN RAI SHARMA versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' (l) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 315 DEVENDRA PRATAP NARAIN RAI SHARMA fl, S'fATE OF UT'fAR PRADESH (K ScrBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Public Servant--Dismissal-Re-in•tated by decree of Civil U,urt-Merits of charge not considered-Whether fresh enquiry 011 the same charge. competent-Salary-Effect of order of Civil Court declaring dismissal invalid-Uttar Pradesh Govern- ment Fundamental Rule. as amended in 1953 r. 64,-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1&08;, O. 2. r. 2-Constitution of India, Arts. 226, 310 and 311. The order of dismissal against the appellant was set aside by the High Court, holding inter alia, that reasonable opportunity was set afforded to the appellant before imposing the penalty dismissed and the appellant must be deemed to continue in service. Thereafter the appellant was re- instated, but he was awarded salary at the rate of Rs. 76-11-0 till the order of dismissal, and at a token rate of Rs. l /- for the period between the order of dismissal and reinstatement. The appellant was again suspended and enquiry was directed against him in respect of dereliction of duty for which he had already been once dismissed and re-instated. The appellant moved the High Court for a writ to quash the order directing the said enquiry. He claimed that Govern- ment had no power to re-open the enquiry concluded by the • decision of the High Court and that the State was bound to pay him salary with increments for the period of suspen· sbn as if he was on duty during that period. The High Court, inter atia, held that the second enq_uiry against the appellant was not barred by virtue of the previous decision, but the fixation of token salary amounted to punishment which could not be imposed without following the procedure laid down in Art. 311 of the Constitution, and there was no justification for not granting him full salary. The appellant came up in appeal to the Supreme Court by certificate. Held, that the State Government was competent in the circumstances, to direct a fresh enquiry against the public servant for dereliction of duty,.and to suspend him. Where the order of dismissal of a public servant was declared invalid by the decree of a Civil Court the effect was that the public servant was never to be deemed to have been lawfully dismissed from service, and the order of re-· instatement was superfluous. It was not open to the authority 1961 November 3. /~l r 1 r~·e dra Pratap Jfarain Rai Sharma v. StMt of l.htar Protltslt Shah J. 316 SUPltEll1E COlJRT REPORTS (1962) SUPP. to deprive the public servant of the remuneration which he would have earned had he been permiued to work. Held, Cuther, that r. 54 of the Fundamental Rules of the Uttar Pradesh Government enables the State Govern- ment of fix the pay of a public scrv.u1t, when dismissed is set aiide in a departmental appeal, but that rule has no application to cases in which the dismissal or a public servant is declared invalid by the decree of a Civil Court and he is consequently re-instated. Du;arkacha1ul v. State of Raja&than, I. L. R. ( 1957) Raj. 1049, Nanak Chandra Bairagi v. Supdt. of Folice, Sibsagar, I. L. R. (1955) Assam 191 and Mohan Sinl}h Choudhri v. JJivisional Personnel Officer, ;.V<>rlMrn Railu·ay, Fcroze.pore Gantt. I. L. R. (1957) Pub. 1883, not applicable. C1v1L APPELLATE JuRISDICTICN : Civil Appeal No. 622 of 1960. Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 12, 1960, of the Allahabad High Court (Luck.now Bench) at Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 228 of 1959. 1. M. Lall, E. Udyaruthnam and S.S. Shuku1, for the appellant. G. B. Agrawalla and G. P. Lal, for the respondents. 1001. November 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J.-In I951 the appellant Devendra Prata.p Narain Rai :Sharma held the post of "Ins· pcctor Qa.nungo'' in the Revenue Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh and was selected for the post of Tchsildar on probation. By order dated April ;!l, 1952, the Collector of Jha.nsi BUB· pended the appellant and commenced an enquiry against him on certain charges of misdemeanour. In June, 1952, the Collector recommended to the Land lteforms Commission that the appellant ho revcrwd to tho post of "Naib Tehsildar", but tho Commissioner recommeded to the State Govern- ment that the applicant be dismissed from service. (1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 317 The State Government ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.