Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1314 (MP)

O P PANDEY v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2008-11-11

A.K.PATNAIK, AJIT SINGH

body2008
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Commercial Tax Officer in the commercial Tax Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1990. He was promoted as Assistant Commissioner in the year 2007. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and a penalty of censure was imposed on him under Rule 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short "the Rules" ). ( 2. ) AGAINST the order of censure passed by the Commissioner, commercial Tax Department, the petitioner filed an appeal before the principal Secretary, Commercial Tax Department. The Principal Secretary commercial Tax Department dismissed the appeal by order dated 27-1-2001. The petitioner then filed a review against the order of the Appellate Authority before the Governor on 29-6-2001. The review has not been disposed of as yet and is still pending. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that his review petition has not been entertained because of a circular issued by the General administrative Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh on 20-1-2000 that no review can be entertained against an order passed by the Appellate authority. Aggrieved, he has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution praying for inter alia quashing the circular dated 20-1-2000 issued by the General Administrative Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh and for direction to the respondents to decide the review petition of the petitioner. ( 3. ) ON 23-10-2008, after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner the Court directed notice to be issued to the respondents and called upon Mr. V. K. Shukla, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the state to obtain instructions in the matter. Although Mr. Shukla prayed for some time to file a reply, we are of the considered opinion that the question raised in this petition being purely one of law involving interpretation of Rule 29 of the rules which provides for review, a reply on facts is not necessary and the matter can be disposed of on an interpretation of Rule 29 of the Rules. ( 4. ) RULE 29 of the Rules is quoted herein below:- "29. ( 4. ) RULE 29 of the Rules is quoted herein below:- "29. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules except Rule 11- (i) the Governor; or (ii) the head of department directly under the State government, in the case of a Government servant serving in a department or office (not being the Secretariat), under the control of such head of a department, or (iii) the Appellate Authority, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be reviewed, or (iv) any other authority specified in this behalf by the Governor by a general or special order, and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order may at any time either on his or its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and review any order made under these rules or under the rules repealed by Rule 34 from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred or from, which no appeal is allowed, after consultation with the commission where such consultation is necessary, and may- (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or (b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit : provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any Reviewing Authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose; any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be reviewed to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, no such penalty shall be imposed except after an inquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 14 and except after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary: provided further that no power to review shall be exercised by the head of department unless- (i) the authority which made the order in appeal, or (ii) the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to him. " ( 5. ) IT will be clear on a plain reading of Rule 29 of the Rules quoted above that (i) the Governor, (ii) the Head of a Department, (iii) the Appellate authority, (iv) any other Authority specified in this behalf by the Governor by a general or special order, either on his or its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and review any order made under the rules from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred or from which no appeal is allowed. The word any before the word inquiry and the word any again before the word order would show that a review can be entertained against any order made under the rules. ( 6. ) THE word any arose for interpretation in Shri Balaganesan Metals vs. M. N. Shanmugham Chetty and others, (1987) 2 SCC 707 and the Supreme court relying on Blacks Law Dictionary observed:- "the word "any" has the following meaning:-some; one of many; an indefinite number. One indiscriminately of whatever kind or quantity. Word "any" has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate "all" or "every" as well as "some" or "one" and its meaning in a given statute depends upon the context and the subject-matter of the statute. It is often synonymous with "either", "every" or "all". Its generality may be restricted by the context; (Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th edn. ). " ( 7. ) AGAIN in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M. K. Gupta, (1994) 1 scc 243 , the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the word any and relying on Blacks Law Dictionary held:- "in Blacks Law Dictionary, it is explained thus, "word any has a diversity of meaning and may be employed to indicate all or every as well as some or one and its meaning in a given statute depends upon the context and the subject-matter of the statute". " ( 8. ) THE authorities on the interpretation of the word any are thus clear that the word any has diverse meanings and what meaning it will have in a particular statute will depend upon the context and the subject of the statute in which it is used. We will, therefore, have to understand the word any used in rule 29 of the Rules by looking at Rule 29 of the Rules. We will, therefore, have to understand the word any used in rule 29 of the Rules by looking at Rule 29 of the Rules. ( 9. ) AS we have seen from the language of Rule 29 of the Rules quoted above, the four Reviewing Authorities can call for the records of any inquiry and review any order made under the Rules from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal is preferred or from which no appeal is allowed. As we have seen in the two Supreme Court decisions Blacks Law Dictionary has been relied upon to say that the word any may also indicate all or every order depending on the context in which it is used. In the context of Rule 29 of the rules, we hold that the word any is wide enough to cover all and every order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred or from which no appeal has been allowed and the word any order in Rule 29 of the Rules is not confined to an original order by the Disciplinary Authority under the rules. Against an order passed by the Appellate Authority, admittedly no appeal is allowed under the Rules. Hence, a review is available against an order passed by the Appellate Authority. ( 10. ) IN the result, we quash the impugned circular dated 20-1-2000 in so far as it states that no review under Rule 29 of the Rules is permissible against an appellate order. The respondents will now entertain the review and place it before the Reviewing Authority, namely, the Governor, for a final decision. We hope and trust that the Reviewing Authority will decide the review as early as possible preferably by the end of December, 2008.