The initiation of a de novo enquiry by a Disciplinary Authority is permissible despite prior findings of negligence, as the doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply if no punishment was imposed.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. Aggrieved by the order of the Disciplinary Authority deciding to undertake de novo enquiry the petitioners were before the Industrial Court. The petitioners who are facing charge of misappropriation of amount while working as a peon and clerk an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Bank in relation to misappropriation of an amount of Rs.44,49,000/-. After a long enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted report wherein the petitioners are held to be negligent, therefore, the charge with which petitioners were charged is held to be partially proved as against the petitioners.

3. Based on the enquiry report holding the petitioners as negligent, a show-cause-notice was issued to the petitioners as to why the petitioners should not be dismissed from service. The same was responded by the petitioners. Preceded by the said show-cause-notice, subsequently again a show-cause-notice was served upon the petitioners reiterating as to why the petitioners should not be dismissed from the service. In the peculiar backdrop due to serious financial defalcation of huge amount owing to petitioners’ involvement in an act of misappropriation to the gross extent, the respondent-Bank passed a resolution to appoint an Enquiry Officer afresh so as to initiate departmental enquiry de novo. On the strength of the said resolution, the Enquiry Officer was appointed so as to conduct the departmental enquiry against the delinquent employees including the petitioners herein.

4. Being aggrieved by the initiation of de novo departmental enquiry the petitioners approached the Industrial Court by presenting the complaint. Before the Industrial Court, wherein a ground is raised that the petitioners cannot be penalized on successive occasions, as such, doctrine of double jeopardy was pressed into service. The Industrial Court, while rejecting the objection taking into account the extent of misappropriation of amount, has held that the report of the Enquiry Officer does not bind the disciplinary authority, as such, it is open for the Disciplinary Authority to render its own conclusions on the charges after the proposed enquiry. Resultantly, application was partly allowed, thereby awarding 100% subsistence allowance to the petitioners, however, the de novo enquiry as decided in the resolution was permitted to be proceeded with.

5. Raising challenge to the said order, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that initiation of said enquiry leads to breach of the principle of doctrine of double jeopardy. Nevertheless, it would be seriously prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners since the petitioners have already faced enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has already held the petitioners herein as negligent, as such it is not open for the respondent – Bank to initiate de novo enquiry and report of Enquiry Officer binds the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, it is not open to the Bank to undertake de novo enquiry. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following decisions :-

(I) Dwarkachand Vs. State , AIR 1958 Rajasthan 38

(II) K.R. Deb Vs. The Collector or Central Excise, Shillong , 1971 (2) SCC 102 .

(III) The State of Assam and another Vs. J.N. Roy Biswas , AIR 1975 SC 2277 .

(IV) Canara Bank and Ors. Vs. Swapan Kumar Pani and Anr. , AIR 2006 SC 1297 .

(V) State Bank of India, Bhopal Vs. S.S. Koshal, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 468.

(VI) Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra , (1998) 7 SCC 84 .

(VII) Chattu Jathan of B