https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172095 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. en-us Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172095 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 28 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172095