IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a dismissal based on insufficient evidence is invalid, and a fresh inquiry must be conducted if a prior punishment is quashed on technical grounds, while also affirming the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.

In the instant appeal the appellants – Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and others (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’) have assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2018 passed in CWJC No. 4713 of 2006. Respondent – Ravi Kishore Sahay was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the appellants – Corporation on the allegation of misappropriating the sugar and defalcation of Rs. 10.75 lakhs. The disciplinary proceedings was concluded in imposition of penalty of dismissal from service and it was subject matter of review petition in which also respondent had suffered orders on 29.03.2004 and 08.07.2004 respectively, which are subject matters of CWJC No. 4713 of 2006.

2. Learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition on technical / legal lacunas in the departmental inquiry, in which he has recorded that it is a case of no evidence and findings of the inquiring officer is perverse. He is also relying on the decisions of the Apex Court passed in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and State of U.P. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772.

3. The alleged allegation levelled against the respondent was in respect of misappropriating the sugar and such misappropriation would be resulting in defalcation of Rs. 10.75 lakhs. It is a serious allegation/charge levelled against the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that having regard to the charges levelled against the respondent and the fact that on an earlier occasion he was also subjected to disciplinary proceedings on identical charges in the year 1997 and it was concluded in imposition of penalty of recovery and having regard to the repeated alleged allegations which were proved, the appellants – Corporation proceeded to impose the penalty of dismissal from service.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – Ravi Kishore Sahay submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. It is also submitted that respondent was already punished on 17.08.1999 on identical charges and ordered for recovery of Rs. 12,91,938.53/-. It is submitted that respondent cannot be punished for the same offence on two occasions and it is in violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no interference is called for in respect of order of the learned Single Judge dated 31.08.2018 passed in CWJC No. 4713 of 2006.

6. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

7. Perusal of the records, in particularly earlier punishment order dated 17.08.1999, the alleged allegation of misappropriation of sugar and its calculation in money terms is in respect of alleged allegations of the year 1997 whereas the present charges are relating to the year 2000, therefore, the contention of the respondent that for the same offence or for the same allegations, respondent has been punished on two occasions in the year 1999 and in the year 2004 cannot be acceptable in view of the factual difference to the extent that earlier recovery order of a sum of Rs. 12,91,938.53/-is in respect of alleged allegations relates back to of the year 1997 whereas the present dismissal order is in respect of alleged allegations in the year 2000.

8. The learned Single Judge has committed error in not remanding the matter for the reasons that the alleged allegation made relates to defalcation of Rs. 10.75 lakhs. It is true that sufficient material has not been placed on record before the inquiring authority and proved in the manner known to the law. Therefore, to that effect there is a lacunae in the disciplinary proceedings. If the order of dismissal or punishment order in a department is set aside on technicality like the present case that no materials have been placed on record and inquiring officer’s report is perverse, in such circumstances, it is a case of remand having regard to the fact that the allegation is of misappropriation of