ABINASH CHANDRA MRIDHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL, IRRIGATION AND WATERWAYS DEPARTMENT, CALCUTTA AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ABINASH CHANDRA MRIDHA
STATE OF WEST BENGAL THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL, IRRIGATION AND WATERWAYS DEPARTMENT, CALCUTTA AND ORS.
Click here to view full judgement.
Durgadas Basu, J. -
(1.) In this case the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the order at Annexure "E" & "M" a t page 27 and 67 of the paper book. The Rule obtained by the petitioner has, however, discharged by the order of Binayak Nath Banerjee, J. dated the 26th August, 1963.
(2.) By the first order dated the 3rd May, 1957 the Govt, sought to revise, under Rule 22 of the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1936, the order said to have been passed by the Superintending Engineer, North Bengal Circle, whereby the latter recorded punishment of a 'severe warning' against the petitioner, finding him guilty of charge five only out of several charges which were served upon the petitioner and an inquiry thereupon had been held by the sail Superintending Engineer By annexure "E" the Government of West Bengal called upon the petitioner to show cause why the enhancement as aforesaid, leading to an order of removal from service should not be made by the Govt. After the petitioner submitted his representations the Government passed the final order at annexure 'M' by which the petitioner was removed from services from the date of service of that order doted the 11th May, 1962 which was served upon the petitioner on the 18th May, 1962.
(3.) The primary ground urged by Mr. Chakrabarty, on behalf of the appellant, is that Rule 22 of the said Rules does not confer upon the State Government a power to enhance the punishment while exercising the power of revision. Rule 22 is as follows:
"Nothing in these Rules shall preclude the Local Government from revising, whether on its own motion or otherwise, any order passed by an authority subordinate to it in exercise of powers conferred on such authority by these Rules " It is common place to state that there is a marked distinction between the powers of appeal and revision. In the case of appeal unless the relevant statute restricts the power of the appellate tribunal as a general rule the appellate court or tribunal can exercise the same powers as were open to the original authority from whose decision the appeal was brought, In the case of revision, however, that principle does not apply and a revisional authority can exercise only these powers which are conferred upon him by the statute expressly in the instant case, the relevant Rule, namely, Rule 22, merely says that the Local Government may revise on its own motion or otherwise an order ;passed by a subordinate authority Since no power to enhance the punishment is conferred it would be reasonable to hold that the power of revision is intended to remove clerical errors or to intervene in the interest of justice in casts where no appeal lies, as would appear from Rule 54 of the Civil Services (Classification and Control) Appeal Rules, 1930, which confers power to make the Rule embodied in the Bengal Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1936. We, therefore, uphold the contention of Mr. Chakrabarty that Rule 22 of the latter Rules does not authorise the Government acting as the authority in revision to enhance the punishment imposed by the punishing authority upon the delinquent.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.