# STATE OF ASSAM & ANR v. J. N. ROY BISWAS

- **Citation:** [1976] 2 S.C.R. 128
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-10-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 899 of 1968
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, A. C. Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-assam-anr-v-j-n-roy-biswas-6699
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Service-Govemment servant exonerated and reinstated after enquiryReopening 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.

## Text

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 enquiryReopening 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, Chatribari, Gauhati, for information and necessary action. The
findings and orders of the proceeding will follow.
2.
3.
The findings and orders together with the regularisation 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 informed 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 case concluded by
exoneration and reinstatement and the illegal vexation of a second
enquiry should be arrested.
This grievance was held good
by the
High Court which granted the relief sought.
What is the conspectus of circumstances ? A
small veterinary
official, a long enquiry for mis-conduct, a final direction cancelling
suspension and reinstating him, the likelihood of the
man having
retired (15 years have gone by) and nothiflg on record to substantiate
any fatal infirmity in the earlier enquiry or dereliction of duty by the
disciplinary authority except that a reasoned record of findings was
to be forthcoming, but did not, because he had retired in the meanwhile! No action against the retired Director for this alleged omission
was felt justified and perhaps was not warranted but with persistent.
B·
c:
D,
E
H
D
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 2 S.C.R.
litigative zeal Government has come in appeal to this Court against
the petty official.
Had he 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.
None such has
been shown to exist although one wonders why a rule vesting such a
residuary power of a supervisory nature to be exercised in the event
of a subordinate disciplinary authority not having handled a delinquent
adequately or rightly is brought to the attention of Government has
not been made. No rule of double jeopardy bars but absence of power
under a rule inhibits a second inquiry by the Disciplinary authority
. after the delinquent had once been absolved.
The appeal must fail
. and is dismissed with costs.
\Ve may however make it clear that no government servant can
1urge that if for some technical or other good ground, procedural or
other, the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in
law that a second enquiry cannot be launched. It can be; but once a
disciplinary case has closed and the official re-instated, presumably on
full exoneration, a chagrined Government cannot re-start the exercise
in the absence of specific power to review or revise, vested by rules
in some authority.
The basics of the rule of law cannot be breached
without legal provision or other vitiating factor invalidating the earlier
enquiry.
For the present, this is theoretical because no such deadly
defect is apparent on the record.
P.B.R.
Appeal dismissed.
•
t
\
I \