MUKESH ALI versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 228 · Decided: 04-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUKESH ALI 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. 
JULY 4, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1984-Rules 26 and 27-
C Disciplinary Proceedings against employee-Dropping of. in pursuance of 
Order of Supreme Court-Employee found not guilty of charges on basis of 
enquiry report-Supreme Court again directing State to review action taken 
in terms of the previous order-Notice to employee to review decision of 
dropping of proceedings-Challenge to-Held: Orders of Supreme Court were 
D only prospective in nature and not meant to be retrospective-It did not allow 
State Government to reopen the departmental proceedings concluded in the 
past on accepting enquiry report-Moreso case of employee not part of action 
taken report-State Government did not have power to review under the Rules-
Retrospective!Prospective operation. 
E 
Appellant-Assistant Conservator of Forest was working in the Forest 
Department. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, he was 
placed under suspension and was later reinstated in service. Three years 
later, appellant was served with a Memo to show cause certain charges. 
Meanwhile, this Court by orrder dated 15.l.1998 in Writ Petition (C) No. 
F 202/1985 issued directions to the State Government to identify the forest 
divisions where illegal felling of trees have taken place and initiate action 
and submit Report to the Clmtral Government. Enquiry Officer submitted 
its report that the appellant was not guilty of the charges. Thereafter, 
proc~dings against the appellant were dropped and his suspension period 
was directed to be considered as on duty. By order dated 12.5.2001 in Writ 
G Petition (C) No. 202/1985 this court again directed the States to review 
the action taken in terms of previous order and submit the Action Taken 
Report. Thereafter, appellant was issued second notice as to why decision 
of dropping the disciplinary pro~eedings be not reviewed. Appellant 
challenged the validity of the notice. Both the writ petition and writ appeal 
H 
228 
MUKESHAL!v. STATE OF ASSAM 
229 
were dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
A 
Appellant contended that the orders passed by this Court on 
15.L 1998 and 12.5.2001 were prospective in operation and not 
retrospective so as to include the case of the appellant for review of the 
concluded departmental proceeding in pursuance of the order dated 
15.1.1998 as no action was taken against the appellant in pursuance of B 
the said order; and that the respondents had no authority or jurisdiction 
to re-open the departmental proceedings which ended in favour of the 
appellant being not guilty. 
Respondents contended that the sole objective of the two orders 
passed by this Court is to ensure that no guilty official is let scot-free and C 
this objective has to be achieved by providing for 'Review Mechanism; 
that whenever and wherever the State Government finds reasons to find 
fault with any disciplinary proceeding or enquiry-procedural or 
substantive, it should be in the light of this main objective that the said 
two orders should be interpreted; that under Rules 26 and 27 of the Assam D 
Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1984, the State Government can 
review any order of any Court of law; and that the second notice for 
review of the enquiry Report was issued in exercise of the powers of review 
under the Rules and was without any malafide intention nor was the same 
intended to affect the career of the appellant. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1 The judgment passed by the Division Bench of High Court 
upholding the judgment of Single Judge is bad !n law and against the 
directions issued by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 202of1995 dated 15.1.1998 
and 12.5.2001 and as such is set aside. (239-B-C) 
F 
2.1. Any exercise of powers of Review by the authority must be 
within the ambit and in terms of this Court's order dated 15.1.1998 and 
12.5.2001 which this Court never meant to be retrospective. Therefore, 
the second show cause notice was not issued on the basis of the directions G 
of this Court. High Court was not justified in holding that the respondents 
have power to review under Rules 26 and 27 of the Assam Service 
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1984. It has never been the case of respondent 
no. 2 that the reviewing authority suo moto exercised the power of review 
under Rule 27. High Court failed to interpret and judicially consider the 
order da

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