The principle of double jeopardy does not bar a second disciplinary proceeding if the charges are not identical to those in the first enquiry, and the principles of natural justice require that the accused be given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present his defense.

( 1 ) IN mis Writ Petition the order passed on 16-3-1993 by the 1st respondent dismissing the petitioner from service is impugned.

( 2 ) THE necessary facts are-that the petitioner was working as Clerk in Cooperative central Bank, Srikakulam. On 21-2-1983 he was placed under suspension on the allegation of misappropriation of some funds of the Bank. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner and he submitted an explanation. On 9-7-1983 the petitioner was reinstated and a Bank Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations of misappropriation. After dueenquiry The Enquiry Officer submitted his report On 28-10-1983 the Board of Management of the Bank met and resolved to impose the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cummulative effect initially and served a show cause notice on the petitioner on 29-10-1983. The Petitioner gave his explanation and after consideration of the explanation the Board of management reduced the punishment to stoppage of one increment and treated the period under suspension as on leave. Thereafter the petitioner has been discharging his duties in the Bank.

( 3 ) WHILE so on 19-2-1985 the 1st respondent initiated again disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the self-same charges and the explanation was called for under Regulation No. 112 and 114 of the Service Regulations. In all five charges were framed. The petitioner gave his explanation. An Enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry continued for a long time. The petitioner during the course of enquiry asked for supply of certain documents which are relevant for the purpose of enquiry. On 3-4-1990 the petitioner gave another explanation and the enquiry was adjourned to 1-3-1991. On 1-3-1991 the petitioner did not appear as he underwent eye operation. It is the contention of the petitioner that inspite of the representation made on behalf of the petitioner the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry ex parte and recorded statements of ten witnesses on 1-3-1991 and 2-3-1991. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 2971 /91. This Writ Petition was disposed pf at the admission stage on 26-7-1991 directing the petitioner to submit his detailed statement mentioning the documents which he requires and with a further direction to the respondents to comply with the request of the petitioner and permit him to peruse the documents and also to dispose of the enquiry in accordance with the principles of fair play and natural justice. In obedience to the above directions given by the High Court the Enquiry Officer issued a notice to the petitioner fixing the enquiry on 29-10-1991. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and perused the documents. According to the petitioner, the petitioner also made a request to the Enquiry Officer to re-call the ten witnesses examined on 1-3-1991 and 2-3-1991 for the purpose of cross- examina tion. The Enquiry Officer assured the petitioner that the witnesses will be re-called after recording the statement of the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner s statement was recorded. On 10-8-1993 the petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the 1st respondent proposing the punishment of dismissal. On receipt of this show cause notice the petitioner came to know that the enquiry has been concluded. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice dated 10-8-1992 giving all the details. On 25-2-1993 the Board of Management of the 1st respondent Bank passed a resolution dismissing the petitioner from service. The said resolution was communicated by the letter dated 16-3-1993 of the 1st respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner received the same on 22-3-1993. Assailing the same the present Writ Petition is filed.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted the following three points:- (1) The entire process of enquiry and the order impugned are vitiated for lack of jurisdiction. So the impugned proceedings are to be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document