Carrying passengers on the roof of the bus and not charging pre-paid fare did not constitute misconduct and the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct. The subsequent disciplinary proceedings for the same period and misconduct after the appellant was re-engaged violated the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

B.L.Yadav, J.

1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated May 2, 1991 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing in part C. W.J.C. No. 1844 of 1989 (R). The learned Single Judge recorded finding substantially in favour of the petitioner/appellant, a bus conductor but instead of directing reinstatement directed the petitioner to be entitled to 3.33 years wages last drawn by him.

2. The relief claimed in the present Letters Patent Appeal is that it may be allowed and the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge be modified to the extent that the petitioner/appellant may be reinstated with the entire back wages.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner/appellant was appointed by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (Respondent No. 1) as a bus conductor. He was appointed on substantive vacancy, whereas according to the respondents he was appointed as a casual employee. The appellant was, however, charge-sheeted in 1985. A departmental proceeding followed and he was found guilty by an order dated June 4, 1986 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and was dismissed from services. The order of dismissal was, however, challenged before the Appellate authority. By an order dated September 14, 1988 (Annexure-4). Respondent No. 2, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, directed the Appellant to be re-engaged on the same terms and conditions as he was earlier holding. It was, however, made clear that he would not be entitled to any regular salary from the date of his dismissal till the date of his re-engagement.

4. Thereafter fresh disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant for the same period in which the earlier disciplinary proceeding was initiated. To be precise subsequent disciplinary proceedings were initiated for an alleged misconduct committed on May 11, 1986, whereas as stated above, he was dismissed from services on June 4, 1986. Against that order he preferred an appeal which was dismissed. The principal charge against him in subsequent disciplinary proceeding was, that there were passengers on the roof of the bus and he has not pre-realised the fare. In respect of these charges the petitioner/appellant has given sufficient explanation. Particularly, he emphasises that for the period prior to his dismissal he was charge sheeted and subsequently initiating the proceedings for the same period and misconduct would amount to violation of Doctrine of Double Jeopardy and by re-engagement the earlier misconduct, if any, was condoned or wiped out. In respect of this defence a mention was also made in the finding of the Enquiring Officer (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The mention has been made in Para-7 of the Judgment of the learned single Judge. The learned Single Judge after recording the finding in favour of the petitioner/appellant, instead of directing the re-instatement, directed that wages for the period of 3.33 years to be paid to him.

5. Ms. M.M. Pal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the petitioner/appellant was dismissed from services on certain charges for a period to June 4, 1986, the date of his dismissal. Thereafter, he was re-engaged which connotes that the earlier misconduct was condoned or wiped out. But after re-engagement he was again charge-sheeted for the period and some misconduct prior to his dismissal. The charges were so flimsy and lacking in substance that even if proved they would not constitute misconduct. The basic charges were that there were a number of passengers sitting on the roof of the bus, and he (the Appellant) did not charge pre-paid fare. The subsequent charge- sheet after re-engagement for the same period and pertaining to almost the same old charges for which punishment of dismissal was already awarded, could not be served nor twice punishment could be awarded as it would be in violation of the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy. Th