VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

262 DECISION - 50
Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma vs. State of UttarPradesh,
AIR 1962 SC 1334
The appellant, was Inspector Qanungo in the Revenue
Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh and was selected for the
post of Tahsildar on probation. The Collector of Jhansi suspended
him by order dated 21-4-52 and instituted a departmental inquiry.
The State Government dismissed him from service by order dated
16-9-53. The High Court declared the order as void on the ground
that the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity. He
was reinstated as Tahsildar by order dated 30-3-59. The appellant
was again suspended by order dated 11-7-59 of the Revenue Board
and departmental inquiry was instituted against him on the same
charges. The High Court held that the second inquiry was not barred
by virtue of the previous decision and directed the State Government
to reconsider the matter regarding the pay and allowances for the
period 24-11-54 to 28-4-59. Against this order of the High Court, an
appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that after an order passed in an
inquiry against a public servant imposing a penalty is quashed by a
civil court, a further proceeding can be commenced against him if in the
proceeding in which the order quashing the inquiry was passed, the merits
of the charge against the public servant concerned were never investigated.
Where the High Court decreed the suit of the public servant on the ground
that the procedure for imposing the penalty was irregular, such a decision
cannot prevent the State from commencing another inquiry in respect of
the same subject matter. If the State Government is competent to order
a fresh inquiry, it would be competent to direct suspension of the Public
servant during the pendency of the inquiry.
(50)
(A) Evidence Act — applicability of
Inquiry Officer not bound by strict rules of law or evidence.