Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ANAND NARAIN SHUKLA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided
2 August 1979
Judges listed
N.L. UNTWALIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1980] 1 S.C.R. 196 · 1979 INSC 140
Also cited as
  • (1980) 1 SCC 252 (5 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1979 SC 1923 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

J.-The appellant was an Office Superintendent in the office oi Agriculture Department. Certain charges were levelled/ .against him. An enquiry was purported to be held. After finding him guilty of some charges, he was reverted to a lower rank. He challenged that order by cfiling a Writ Petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court . That Writ Petition was allowed and the order of reversion was quashed on the ground that the enquiry held was not proper and legal. In view of the order of the High Court, the appellant was reinstated in his original post of Office Superinten" dent. But shortly after, he was put under suspension and fresh proceedings were started on the basis of the same old charges. In the second proceedings, he has been found guilty of certain charges, the dttails of which are not necei;sary to be mentioned in our judgment. He was again reverted and it was also directed in the order that the allowance paid to him during the period of suspension could remain intact. The appellant filed a second Writ Petition in the High Court to challenge the fresh order of reversion. The High •Court has dismissed his Writ Petition. Hence this appeal in this •Court on grant of a certificate by the High Court.

p. 197, margin A

Mr. D. N. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant urged only two points before us; (1) that after the earlier order of reversion was quashed by the High Court and after the appellant was :reinstated, no second enquiry on the very same charges could be held and no second order of reversion could be legally and validly made; and (2) that appellant was entitled to the full salary for the period of suspension. · We find no substance in either of the points urged on behalf of the appellant. The earlier order was quashed on the technical ground. On merits, a second enquiry could be held. It was rightly held. The order of reinstatement does not bring about any distinction in that regard. The Government had to pass that order because the earlier order of reversion had been quashed by the High Court. Without reinstating the appellant, it would have been difficult perhaps- unlaWful, to start a fresh enquiry aganist the appel· lant. The observations of this Court in the last paragraph of the judgment in State of Assam & Anr. v. J. N. Roy Biswas,(') are not · applicable to the facts of the present case and do not help the: appellant at all.

p. 197, margin D

The reduced amount paid to the appellant for the period of suspension was affirmed by making it a part of the order of reversion (I) itself. That being so, the second point urged by the counsel is also of no substance. For the reasons, stated above, we dismiss th!S appeal but since the appellant has already retired from service, we make no . order as to costs. V.D.K. Appeal dismissed.

pp. 197–198, margin H