Civil Appeal No 467 of 1970
From the Judgment and order dated 25 4 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition No 467
D N Mukherjee and G section Chatterjee for the Appellant
section K Gambhir R Nath and Miss Ram Rakhiani for the Respondent
197 The order of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA J
The appellant was an office Superintendent in the office of 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 filing 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 Superintendent
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 details of which are not necessary 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
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 against the appellant
The observations of this Court in the last paragraph of the judgment in State of Assam  Anr
vs J N Roy Biswas are not applicable to the facts of the present case and do not help the appellant at all
The reduced amount paid to the appellant for the period of suspension was affirmed by making it a part of the order of reversion 198 itself
That being so the second point urged by the counsel is also of no substance
For the reasons stated above we dismiss this appeal but since the appellant has already retired from service we make no order as to costs
VDK Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant an office Superintendent was reverted to a lower rank after finding him guilty of some charges held in a departmental enquiry
The said orders were quashed by the High Court on the ground that the enquiry held was not proper and legal
The appellant was reinstated as office superintendent
Later fresh enquiry was started after placing him under suspension on the basis of the same old charges
He was found guilty and again reverted to lower rank with a direction in the order of reversion that the allowance paid to him during the period of suspension could remain intact
The writ petition filed by the appellant against the said orders was dismissed
Dismissing the appeal by certificate the Court  HELD 1
The observations of this Court in State of Assam  Anr
vs J N Ray Biswas 1976 2 SCR p 128  130 to the effect that once a disciplinary case has closed and the official reinstated presumably on full exoneration a chagrinned Government cannot restart the exercise in the absence of a specific power to review or revise vested by rules in some authority are not applicable to the fact of the Present case
197 G H The earlier order was quashed on a technical ground
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 against the appellant
197F G b The reduced amount paid to the appellant for the period of suspension was affirmed by making in a part of the order of reversion itself and is in order
197H 198H