TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Invalidates Review Order in Disciplinary Case, No Back Wages, Pension Granted</h1> <h3>State of Orissa Versus Kanhu Charan Majhi</h3> State of Orissa Versus Kanhu Charan Majhi - 2013 (10) SCR 530, 2014 (1) SCC 156, 2013 (13) SCALE 289 Issues:1. Review of disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee by the State Government.2. Interpretation of Rules 31 and 32 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962.3. Determining the validity of the review order passed by the Governor after a significant period.4. Deciding on the appropriate action against the employee in light of the prolonged legal proceedings and retirement.Issue 1: Review of Disciplinary Proceedings:The case revolved around the review of disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee by the State Government. The respondent, appointed as an Inspector of Supplies, faced challenges regarding his belonging to the SC/ST category. The proceedings were initially dropped in 1995 but were reinitiated in 2000, leading to a legal battle. The primary concern was the validity of reinitiating the proceedings against the employee after a prior decision to drop them.Issue 2: Interpretation of Rules 31 and 32:The central legal debate focused on the interpretation of Rules 31 and 32 of the Orissa Civil Services Rules. Rule 31 grants the Governor the power to review orders, while Rule 32 allows the Appellate Authority to review orders in disciplinary cases within a six-month limitation. The crux of the matter was whether the review order in this case was in accordance with these rules, especially concerning the Governor's authority to review the decision after a significant period.Issue 3: Validity of Governor's Review Order:The Court analyzed the validity of the Governor's review order passed in 2000, which set aside the decision to drop the disciplinary proceedings from 1995. The respondent argued that the review order was not in line with the rules due to the extended time lapse. The Court deliberated on whether the Governor's review power was appropriately exercised and if the timing of the review order complied with the legal provisions.Issue 4: Action Against the Employee and Retirement:Considering the prolonged legal proceedings and the respondent's retirement, the Court decided on the appropriate action against the employee. Despite upholding the invalidity of the review order, the Court opted not to initiate further proceedings against the respondent due to the passage of time. Instead, the Court directed that no back wages be paid for the period of non-employment, but the respondent should receive pension based on the last drawn pay after superannuation. This decision aimed to provide closure to the extended legal battle and ensure justice in light of the circumstances.The judgment delved into the nuances of administrative review powers, statutory limitations, and the implications of prolonged legal battles on employees. By dissecting the rules governing such proceedings and balancing legal principles with practical considerations, the Court arrived at a decision that aimed to uphold justice while providing closure to the protracted litigation.
TaxTMI 