Belated review of dropped disciplinary proceedings must be exercised within a reasonable time; stale revival was invalid.

A review of an order dropping departmental proceedings was upheld in principle under Rule 31 because an order issued in the Governor's name by a competent departmental officer could be treated as an exercise of gubernatorial power, even without the Governor's personal signature. However, the same review failed for delay: Rule 32 sets a six-month review limit, and a review made nearly five years later was held plainly unreasonable even under the broader Rule 31 power. The resulting revival of disciplinary proceedings was invalid. In view of the employee's superannuation, no further departmental action was taken, back wages were denied, and pension was directed to be fixed on the basis of last pay drawn.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the order dated 4 September 2000, by which the earlier decision dropping departmental proceedings was reviewed, was made in accordance with Rule 31 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 and the Orissa Government Rules of Business; (ii) whether the same review was sustainable under Rule 32 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 in view of the six-month limitation and the requirement of a reasonable period for review; (iii) what consequential reliefs should follow in light of the respondent's superannuation.

Issue (i): whether the order dated 4 September 2000, by which the earlier decision dropping departmental proceedings was reviewed, was made in accordance with Rule 31 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 and the Orissa Government Rules of Business.

Analysis: Rule 31 empowers the Governor to review an order. An order need not be personally signed by the Governor if, under the Rules of Business, it is issued in the Governor's name by the competent departmental officer. The order in question was issued by the Under Secretary, who was competent to sign in the name of the Governor under the Rules of Business. On that footing, the review could be treated as an exercise of the Governor's power under Rule 31.

Conclusion: the review was capable of being traced to Rule 31 and was not invalid merely because it was signed by the Under Secretary.

Issue (ii): whether the same review was sustainable under Rule 32 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 in view of the six-month limitation and the requirement of a reasonable period for review.

Analysis: Rule 32 permits review by the appellate authority only within six months from the date of the order sought to be reviewed. The impugned review was made nearly five years after the earlier order. Even where Rule 31 contains no express limitation, the power of review must be exercised within a reasonable time. A delay of about five years was held to be plainly unreasonable, especially when the disciplinary regime itself treats six months as the outer limit under Rule 32.

Conclusion: the review could not be sustained as a valid exercise of review power after such delay, and the initiation of proceedings pursuant to that review was invalid.

Issue (iii): what consequential reliefs should follow in light of the respondent's superannuation.

Analysis: the respondent had already attained the age of superannuation. In the peculiar facts, further disciplinary action was declined. Applying the principle of no work, no pay, the respondent was denied back wages for the period not worked, while pension was directed to be fixed on the basis of the last pay actually drawn and paid in accordance with that fixation.

Conclusion: no further departmental action was to be taken, no back wages were payable, and pension was to be determined on the basis of the last pay actually drawn.

Final Conclusion: the impugned review and the consequential initiation of departmental proceedings were held unsustainable, but the Court moulded relief by denying back wages and directing pensionary benefits on the basis of the last pay drawn.

Ratio Decidendi: a power of review, even when vested in the Governor without an express statutory period, must be exercised within a reasonable time, and a belated review of an order dropping disciplinary proceedings cannot validly revive stale proceedings.

---