STATE OF ASSAM versus P.C. MISHRA, L.A.S. AND ORS. ETC

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 515 · Decided: 20-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ASSAM 
A 
.v. 
P.C. MISHRA, l.A.S. AND ORS. ETC. 
OCTOBER 20, 1995 
[J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.j 
B 
Public Administration : 
State Goven11nent-C/1ief Secretmy applying for leave-Chief Minister 
ordeling Additional Chief Secretmy to be incharge of Chief Secretary until C 
fwther orders-Govemment Notification giving effect to Chief Minister's order 
after expi1y of leave ~ Confusion as to actual status of two officers resulting 
in conflict and Govenznzent's conunents on conduct of one of the officers 
leading to litigation before Central Administrative Tlibunal--Tlibunal passing 
adverse remarks against Chief Secretmy-Held, government should have 
clalified position to avoid conflict which jeopardised proper functioning of D 
State Administration-Adverse remarks expunged-High Officials to exercise 
power in public interest. 
Respondent No. 2 in Civil Appeal No. 9560/95 was Chier Secretary 
orthe appellant State in November 1990. On 8. 11.1990 he applied for leave E 
and the Chier Minister ordered that respondent No. 1, the Additional Chier 
Secretary, would be in charge or Chier Secretary until rurther orders. 
Though the Chier Secretary on 9.11.1990 had clarified that he would be on 
casual leave for 9.11.1990 and 10.11.1990, Government Notification dated 
11.11.1990 was issued posting respondent No. 1 as Chier Secretary, who 
claimed to have assumed charge 011 12.11.1990. Later, by order dated F 
.28.11.1990 the Government notified the appointment or respondent No. 2 
as Chier Secretary. 
Meanwhile, an incident led to· the controversy about the exact status 
or respondent No. 1 on 12.11.1990. On that date a lady ofticer, in the rank G 
or Joint Secretary, made a complaint to the Chier Secretary, against 
respondent No. 1. Respond.en! No. 2 as Chier Secretary sent the said 
complaint the same day to respondent No. 1 addressing him as Additional· 
Chier Secretary, to clarity the position. The latter treating himselr to be 
the Chier Secretary on 12.11.90 did not give clarification to Respondent 
~1 
H 
515 
A 
B 
516 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
The Government issued an order on 10.lll.1991 conveying its dis-
pleasure to respondent No. l for his indecorous and uncalled fot be· 
haviour with foe junior lady otlicer. The protest made by respondent no. 
l was of no avail and the State Government by its order dated 8.9.1992 
confirmed the earlier order dated 10.10.9L Respondent No. l challenged 
the orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed 
both the orders passed by the State Government and made adverse 
remarks against the Chief Secretary, respondent no. 2. Aggrieved, the State 
Government filed the appeals by special leave. 
It was agreed by the parties that adverse remarks made against the 
C Chief Secretary, respondent No. 2, in the impugned order of the Tribunal 
should be quashed. In the circumstances of the case, the State did not 
press the appeals. 
D 
E 
F 
Disposing of the appeals '"'"·' . -~difying the order of the Tribunal, 
this Court 
HELD : LL The mode of functioning of the State Government which 
led to rival claims by the respondents of holding the office of Chief 
Secretary on 12.lL1990, leaves much to be desired. It does appear that the 
situation resulted from certain ambiguous orders made by the State 
Government on request of respondent No. 2 on 8.11.1990 to proceed on 
leave in spite his clarification on 9.11.1990 of going only on two days causal 
leave. At any rate, some confusion having arisen soon thereafter on 
12.11.1990 on the stand taken by the lady joint Secretary, Department of 
personnel and respondent No. 2 having purported to exercise the authority 
of Chief Secretary on the same day, it was essential for the State Govern-
ment to have clarified the position immediately to avoid any escalation 01· 
that conflict which in turn jeopardised proper functioning of the State 
Administration. [520-H, 521-A-B] 
1.2. It is even more unfortunate that some of the senior most officers of 
G the Indian Administrative Service at the helm of administration in the State 
did not realise the ·implications of their actions which resulted from a clash 
of egos and percolated to the lower levels ofa«!ministration. [521-C] 
1.3. It is incumbent for each occupant of every high otlice to be 
constantly aware that the power invested in the high otlice he holds is 
H meant to be exercised in public interest and only for public good, and that 
STATE v.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.