STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. versus J. N. ROY BISWAS

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 06-10-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
0 
F 
G 
H 
128 
STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. 
v. 
J. N. ROY BISWAS 
October 6, 1975 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.J 
Service-Govemment servant exonerated and reinstated after enquiry-
Reopening of enquiry-If competelll. 
The respondent, a Government ·servant, was suspended from service in 1960. 
On receipt of the findings of the Inquiry Officer, a sho·w cause notice wa,s issued. 
The appointing authority exonerated the respondent but did not make a reasoned 
or~er. Later, however, the case was reopened. 
As the de novo re-cording of 
evidence progressed the re3pondent moved the High Court contending that there 
was no power in the Government to re-open a case which had already be·en 
concluded by exoneration and re-instatement. 
The High Court granted 
the 
relief. 
Dismissing the appeal of the S~ate, 
HELD·. Had the Government servant misappropriated government money 
he should have been punished expeditiously. 
But having been exculpated after 
enquiry, the State could go at him by re-opening the proceedings only if the 
rules vested some such revisory power. No rule of double jeopardy bars the 
reopening of the case. 
But once a disziplinary case has closed and the official 
re-instated the government cannot restart the exercise in the <;bsence of specific 
. power to review or revise vested by rules in some authority. The basics of 
the rule of law cannot be breached without a legal provision or other vitiating 
factor invalidating earlier enquiry. 
CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 899 of 1968. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 
15th February, 1967 of the Assam allid Nagaland High Court in C. 
Rule No. 231 of 1965. 
Naunit Lal, for the appellants. 
Su.kwnar Ghose, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-Was this virtually valstudinarian .appeal 
by 
the Sate against an old and perhaps, by now, superannuated employee 
necessary? Litigation by the State means laying out public resources, 
in a country of much poverty and scarce resources, and only if the 
demanding justice of a case calls for it should an appeal, otherwise of 
inconsequence, be carried ~o the highest Court. In the present i?stance, 
a veterinary assistant; the respondent herein, was suspended m ~ 960 
followed by disciplinary proceedings. 
An enquiry officer, appomted 
by the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, 
conducted the proceedings, submitted his report of findings adverse to 
the respondent, whereupon a show cause notice indicating the penal~y 
of dismissal was issued. 
The 'delinquent' pleaded innocence by hrs 
explanatory statement and the Dir~ctor, on .a study of th~ case in t~e 
light of the explanation offered, dtrected remstatement 
111 a cryptic 
order which runs thus : 
( 
• 
-1 
·~ 
ASSAM v. J. N. ROY BISWAS (Krishna Iyer, J.) 
129 
"OFFICE ORDER NO. 81 DATED 11-1262 
Shri J. N. Roy Biswas, Manager, East Harinagar Liv·~­
stock Farm (Cachar) who was placed 
under 
suspension 
vide this office order No. 42 dated 23-12-60, is re-instated 
in the same post of Manager, at East Harinagar Livestock 
Farm with effect from the date he reports for duty. 
Sd/- G. K. Mehra, 
Director of Animal Husbandry & Vety. 
Department, Assam, Gauhati." 
Memo No. PI-918/26822 Dated 
Gauhati, 
the 
13th 
Dec. '62. 
Copy forwarded to :-
1. Shri J. N. Roy Biswas, Manager, 
East Harinagar 
Livestock 
Farm (under 
suspension) 
C/o Brahmachari 
Maharaj Shri Dawarikanath, Ramkrishna Seva Samity, Cha-
tribari, Gauhati, for information and necessary action. The 
findings and orders of the proceeding will follow. 
2. 
3. 
The findings and orders together with the regularisa-
tion of the period of suspension of Shri J. N. Roy Biswas, 
with effect from 5-1-61 to the date of his reporting for duty 
at East Harinagar Livestock Farm ·will be 
communicated 
separately. 
The -date of jo~ning of Shri Biswas may be in-
formed to this office separately. 
Sd/- B. K. Das 
for Director of Animal Hy. & Vety. 
lt is noteworthy that no reasoned findings were recorded. 
That 
particular officer retired and his successor wrote to the Joint Secretary 
to Government that from the materials of the case the 'delinquent' 
merited punishment and the proceedings be re-opened. This was done 
and as the de novo recording of. evidence progressed the respondent 
moved the High Court under Art. 226 for a writ of prohibition as, in 
his submission, there was no power to re-open a

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