Reinstatement of a civil servant does not have the effect of quashing the entire proceedings or exonerating him from the charges, and a fresh inquiry is not necessary before the civil servant can be dismissed again.

H. R. KRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS and the application numbered 16 of 1957 are petitions by Sub-Inspectors of Excise dismissed from service by the orders of the State Government in similar circumstances. They had been dismissed after inquiry and punishment notices, by the Commissioner of Excise. Following a High Court judgment in what Government considered a comparable case, the order of dismissal by the Commissioner was set aside, the officer formally reinstated and simultaneously suspended, served wjth a fresh punishment notice, and now dismissed by the Government itself.

( 2 ) IN each of them certain general arguments have been made, applicable, from the petitioner's view point, to the other case as well. These have been considered in the judgments of the respective petitions in which the particular grounds have been especially emphasized.

( 3 ) THE prayer, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is for a writ on the State government, directing it to reinstate the petitioner in his post of Sub-Inspector of excise, and to give the consequential reliefs by way of full pay since his dismissal the allegation being that the order of dismissal passed on 29-10-56 is illegal for want of compliance with the Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules of 1950, which incorporate the principles of Article 311 and other reasons.

( 4 ) IT may be noted that the petitioner was proceeded against on several heads of charges contained in two charge-sheets, and after inquiry by the Assistant commissioner of Excise, and the usual punishment notices, was dismissed by the order of the Commissioner of Excise on 21-1-56. Sometime later, the High Court held that another Excise Officer, named Shri Abid Hussain, should not have been dismissed by the Excise Commissioner, but could have been dismissed only by the government on the impression that this officer's position was analogous to that of abid Hussain, the Government got the order of dismissal set aside and the officer accordingly reinstated. Simultaneously, that is, on the same day (24-2-56) and at the same hour, another order was passed suspending the petitioner with effect from the date of the original suspension namely 14-4-54. I shall consider separately, the propriety or otherwise of the suspension order being made retrospective; it need only be noted here that the setting aside of the earlier dismissal order by the Commissioner, the reinstatement, and the suspension arc, as it were one order. Soon after, another notice to show cause on the findings already made, served on him; he had no new grounds to make, nor did he ask leave to lead any further evidence, but argued that the whole proceeding was illegal. The Government now recorded the order of dismissal adopting the same report, and on the same grounds as were the basis of dismissal by the Commissioner.

( 5 ) A large number of grounds have been canvassed with great ability and at very considerable length, but the material issues for decision are not very complicated, they being:

1. Whether the setting aside of the order of dismissal and the reinstatement in this case had the effect of quashing of the entire proceedings and the cancellation of the old charge-sheet and exoneration from all those charges; 2. If it had not, whether a new punishment notice alone was sufficient or a fresh charge-sheet and a fresh inquiry with all its incidents were necessary. 3. Whether, as a fact, the petitineor wanted a fresh inquiry and leave to adduce fresh evidence and that was refused. 4. Whether in the order of dismissal communicated to the petitioner it was necessary to give all the grounds; and (5) Whether the original inquiry has been held in accordance with the rules. Point No. 1.

( 6 ) THIS is really a question of fact. The reinstatement here is not reinstatement in the sense of exoneration, but it is a formal reinstatement because the Government felt, in view of the decision of a High Court, that the authority who dismissed the applicant was not the prop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document