The appellant had no authority to initiate a proceeding on the same charges after the tribunal in the first round expressed its opinion on the merits of the case and quashed the punishment.

ORDER :

1. Though an application for early hearing was listed, regard being had to the narrow compass in which the dispute lies, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the civil appeal is finally heard. The interlocutory application for early hearing stands disposed of.

2. The respondent herein filed a claim petition under Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) challenging the orders dated 21st November, 2001 and 18th March, 2004, by which he was visited with the punishment of censure and withdrawal of two increments for two years temporarily. We need not advert to the allegations made against the respondent and the findings in the inquiry. Suffice it to mention that the respondent raised many a ground before the tribunal including the violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The tribunal by an order dated 28th November, 2006, came to hold that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice and that apart, there was no basis in the entire inquiry. The inquiry officer did not hold anything about the dishonesty of the respondent and, therefore, the punishment was not justified. The aforesaid order was not assailed by the appellant before the High Court.

4. As the facts would reflect, the respondent submitted a representation for obtaining the benefits which stood rejected and, thereafter, a fresh disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the appellant. Be it noted, at the interim stage, the matter travelled to the High Court and the High Court directed the tribunal to decide the controversy on merits. The initiation of a fresh inquiry was challenged before the tribunal in Claim Petition No.610 of 2007 and the tribunal passed the following order:-

“This claim petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 31.03.2007 filed as Annexure 1 to the claim petition is hereby quashed. The subsequent disciplinary proceedings like the charge-sheet dated 01.12.2008 and the show0-cause notice dated 10.09.2009 issued to the petitioner are also hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the service benefits which he had been denied due to this re-initiation of disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order dated 31.03.2007.”

5. It is contended by Ms. Charu Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that when an order is set aside on technical or other ground procedural or otherwise, the second inquiry is not barred. For the aforesaid purpose, reliance has been placed on three decisions in Narayan Sharma vs. State of U.P. AIR 1962 SC 1334, State of Assam vs. J.N. Roy Biswas (1976) 1 SCC 234 and Union of India vs. M.B. Patnaik (1981) 2 SCC 159.

6. In J.N. Roy Biswas (supra), this Court has held that if for some technical or other good ground procedural or otherwise, the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law, there is no principle that a second inquiry cannot be launched. There is no quarrel over the said proposition of law, but in the instant case, as we find, apart from the ground that there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice, the tribunal in the first round has expressed its opinion on the merits of the case and quashed the punishment. In such a situation, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant had no authority to initiate a proceeding on the self same charges.

7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not perceive any substance in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs.