Back
1967 Supreme(Gau) 30
Manipur High Court
C. JAGANNADHACHARYULU, J.
L. Samjai Singh
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Manipur
Civil Writ Appln. Case No. 2 of 1985
Decided On : 20-04-1967
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - REVIEW OF ORDER
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.311, Art.309
Headnote
SERVICE LAW - REVIEW OF ORDER - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1957 - R. 33 - REVIEW OF ORDERS IN DISCIPLINARY CASES - CONDITIONS - TRANSFER - ADMINISTRATIVE GROUNDS - ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Chowkidar in the Manipur State Trading Office, was suspended and later removed from service following departmental proceedings. He appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the appeal and ordered his reinstatement with certain conditions. However, the Deputy Commissioner subsequently reviewed his order and directed that the period of suspension and removal would be treated as on duty for the purpose of pension only. The petitioner was also transferred to the Manipur State Central Jail as a Warder.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Deputy Commissioner was entitled to review his order under Rule 33 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, as the petitioner had not filed an appeal against the original order. However, the court also held that the Deputy Commissioner should have given notice to the petitioner before reviewing the order, as the arrears of pay were a substantial benefit to which the petitioner was entitled. The court further held that the transfer of the petitioner to the Manipur State Central Jail was made on administrative grounds and was not a punishment. However, the court also held that the petitioner was entitled to the scale of pay of the post of Warder, as he had been appointed to that post.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner was entitled to review his order under Rule 33 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, without giving notice to the petitioner? 2. Whether the transfer of the petitioner to the Manipur State Central Jail was made on administrative grounds or as a punishment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner was entitled to review his order under Rule 33 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, as the petitioner had not filed an appeal against the original order. However, the court also held that the Deputy Commissioner should have given notice to the petitioner before reviewing the order, as the arrears of pay were a substantial benefit to which the petitioner was entitled. 2. The court held that the transfer of the petitioner to the Manipur State Central Jail was made on administrative grounds and was not a punishment. However, the court also held that the petitioner was entitled to the scale of pay of the post of Warder, as he had been appointed to that post.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of the Deputy Commissioner reviewing the original order and transferring the petitioner to the Manipur State Central Jail. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs.
L. Nandakumar Singh, for Petitioner; Munindrakumar Singh, Asst. Govt. Advocate, for Respondents.
This is a writ petition filed under Articles 226, 227 and 311(1) of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the orders of the first respondent (the Deputy Commissioner of Manipur) dated 20-11-1964 under which he reviewed his prior order dated 13-11-64 and directed that the period of suspension and removal of the petitioner should be treated as on duty for the purpose of pension only and under which he further transferred the petitioner to the Manipur State Jail to work as Warder.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar on 12-6-1958 in Manipur State Trading Office in Imphal by the second respondent viz., the State Trading Officer, Manipur, in the time scale of Rs. 25-1-40. He was confirmed as Chowkidar with effect from 23-3-1961. But, Sri Ch. Somorendra Singh, the then State Trading Officer in Manipur State Trading Office, Imphal, suspended the petitioner with effect from 30-1-1964 for a proposed Departmental proceeding under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, (hereinafter called as the Rules) for absenting himself from duty from 30-1-1964 to 13-2-1964 by an order dated 12-2-1964. Charges were framed against the petitioner. He filed his written statement of defence. Shri S.L. Singson, E. A. C. was appointed as the Enquiring Officer. He held an enquiry and submitted a report to the second respondent holding that the charges were proved. Thereupon, the second respondent issued notice to the petitioner on 10-7-1964 to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner filed his reply on 28-7-1964. Shri Ch. Somorendra Singh, however, passed an order as per Ext. A/2 dated 1-8-1964 removing the petitioner from service.
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur. The latter allowed the appeal as can be seen from Ext. A/2 dated 13-11-1964. He ordered that the petitioner should be re-instated, but that his increments for three years should be withheld with cumulative effect. He further directed that the period of suspension and removal of the petitioner from service should be treated as on duty and counted towards pension. The petitioner, thereupon, filed an application as per Ext. A/3 on 16-11-1964 before the second respondent to permit him to join office. But, the second respondent passed an order on the petition that the petitioner would be transferred to some other office. Again, on 18-11-1964 the petitioner filed another application before the second respondent as per Ext. A/4 requesting him to pass an order for payment of arrears of pay, which the petitioner was entitled to draw in view of the order passed by the first respondent as per Ext. A/2. But, the second respondent wrote a note on the petition that the order as per Ext. A/2 was amended, that a fresh order was issued and that the petitioner was not entitled to any arrears of pay.
4. The first respondent reviewed his previous order covered by Ext. A/2 by issuing a fresh order as per Ext. A/5 dated 20-11-1964 that the period of suspension and removal would b» treated as on duty for the purpose of pension "only". Thereby, the petitioner was not permitted to draw the arrears of his salary during the period of suspension and removal of the petitioner from service. Also, the petitioner was transferred by an order of the first respondent as per Ext. A/6 dated 20-11-1964 to work as Warder in the Manipur State Central Jail on the same scale of pay which the petitioner was enjoying as Chowkidar, though the scale of pay of the warder was Rs. 35-1-51-2-55 in the relevant time, which was higher than the scale of pay of the Chowkidar in Manipur State Trading Office.
5. The petitioner is now working as Warder in the Manipur State Central Jail according to the order covered by Ext. A/6 and filed the present writ petition challenging the power of the first respondent to review as per Ext. A/5 his earlier order
