LexSTATE OF ORISSA versus KANHU CHARAN MAJHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013) 10 S.C.R. 530 STATE OF ORISSA v. KAl')IHU CHARAN MAJHI (Civil Appeal No. 9650 of 2013) OCTOBER 28, 2013 [ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Service Law: . c Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 - rr.31 and 32 - Review under - Of the order passed by Government authorities, dropping disciplinary proceedings against respondent-employee - Permissibility - Held: An order passed by Government authorities can be 0 reviewed uls.31 and 32 - Under s.32 it can be reviewed within a period of 6 months - Under s.31, it can be reviewed by the Governor, for which the rule does not prescribe any limitation - In the instant case, review of the order dropping the disciplinary proceedings, can be said to have been passed E by the Governor ulr.31 in view of rr.11 and 12 of Orissa Government Rules of Business - Though Rule 31 does not prescribe any limitation period, the power should be exercised within reasonable period :- Review of the order in the present case after a period of 5 years cannot be said to be reasonable period - Hence, the review was rightly held bad by courts below F - /fJ view of peculiar circumstances of the cas~. on the principle of ;no work no pay' direction not to pay back-wages, but to pay pension on the basis of last pay actually drawn by him from the date on which the employee would have been superannuated - Orissa Government Rules of Business - rr. 11 G and 12. Departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent-employee were dropped by order dated 16.10.1995. The said order was reviewed and by order H 530 STATE OF ORISSA v. KANHU CHARAN MAJHI 531 dated 4.9.2000, the departmental proceedings were A reinitiated. The review of the order dated 16.10.1995 and re-initiation of disciplinary proceedings were held ·to be bad in law by the courts below. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In view of Rules 31 and 32 of Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, B it is clear that an order, passed by the Government Authorities, can be reviewed. Thus, initiation of proceedings In pursuance of order dated 4th September, C 2000 was bad and rightly held so by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. [Paras 15 and 16) [538-G-H] 2. The provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules, whereby power has been given to the Governor to review any D order and therefore, it was open to the Governor to review the order dated 16th October, 1995. It is also true that when any statute empowers the Governor to pass an order, the Governor himself need not sign and need not pass the order. The Rules of business of the particular E State deal with the procedure as to how an order is to be passed by the Governor or in the name of the Governor. In tl:'le instant case, the order dated 4th S~ptember, 2000 was passed by the Under Secretary, Food Supplies & Consumer Welfare Department of the Government of Orissa. According ~o Rules 11 and 12 of the Orissa F Government Rules of Business, an Under Secretary is empowered to sign in the name of the Governor. Thus, in view of the said legal position, the order dated 4th September, 2000 can be said to have been passed by the Governor, exercising power under Rule 31 of the Rules. G [Para 14) [538-A-E] 3. Rule 31 of the Rules does not prescribe any-period of limitation. Normally, when no period of limitation is prescribed, for exercising the power of review, the power H 532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. A of review should be exercised within a reasonable period from the date of order which is sought to be reviewed. In the instant case, the Governor had reviewed the order after about five years. In any case, period of five years cannot be said to be a reasonable period. The action with B regard to review of the order, so as to make it effective, ought to have been passed within reasonable period and the facts of each case would determine as to what period would be reasonable. Therefore, even if the Governor had power to review the order dated 16th October, 1995, c which pertains to dropping of the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondent, the said power could not have been exercised after about five years, as by no stretch of imagination, period of five years can be said to be reasonable, in the facts of the case. 0 [Para 17] [539-B-F] 4. So far as Rule 32 of the Rules. is concerned,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.