Disciplinary actions including retrials are valid if they adhere to statutory protocols and fairness. A finding of double jeopardy is inapplicable where initial punishments are legally rescinded prior to the commencement of fresh proceedings, provided all relevant approvals are obtained from competent authorities.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The subject matter of the instant writ petition is the order dated 09.12.2024 being the order of punishment as imposed by the respondent authorities upon the writ petitioner, the order of the reviewing authority dated 13.02.2024 under Section 163 of the Navy Act, 1957 hereinafter referred to as the “said Act” in short and the order dated 24.07.2024 as passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional bench, Kolkata in OA No. 119 of 2024. By the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 the respondent authorities dismissed the writ petitioner from naval service along with deprivation of Third, Second and First GCB. By the impugned order dated 13.02.2024 as passed by the reviewing authority under Section 163 of the said Act, the competent authority while allowing the review petition of the writ petitioner set aside the trial proceeding and punishment order dated 20.02.2023 with a direction to retry the writ petitioner in accordance with the said Act. By the impugned order dated 24.07.2024 the said Tribunal in OA No. 119 of 2024 recorded a finding that retrial of the writ petitioner was completed and thus, recorded that appropriate orders including qua grant of interim relief as prayed for in the said original application would be considered on the next date. In the instant writ petition the writ petitioner apart from the aforementioned three reliefs has also prayed for other consequential and ancillary reliefs including the prayer to allow him to join the Naval Service with full back wages and consequential benefits including promotions as per his counterpart or batchmate of A131 Class.

2. At the time of hearing Ms. Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to page no. 42 of the instant writ petition (Annexure A-1). It is submitted that from Annexure A-1 it would reveal that the writ petitioner was charged under three heads for allegedly committing offences punishable under Section(s) 60(a)/ 47(c)/ 74 of the said Act. It is submitted by Ms. Roy that on perusal of page no. 55 (Annexure A-3) of the writ petition it would reveal that after conclusion of the summary trial in respect of the aforementioned three alleged offences, the respondent authorities by its memo dated 20.02.2023 imposed the following punishments namely: (i) Stoppage of leave: 60 days, (ii) Reprimand by Captain, (iii) Reduction in rank: EA(R) 4 and (iv) Deprivation of GCB: Second and First.

3. It is submitted further on behalf of the writ petitioner that on perusal of page no. 61 of the instant writ petition (Annexure A-5) it would reveal that by an order dated 13.02.2024 the reviewing authority while disposing the review petition under Section 163 of the said Act though set aside the said summary trial proceeding as well as the punishments however directed for retrial of the writ petitioner in accordance with the said Act. In her next limb of submission it is further argued by Ms. Roy that though the reviewing authority set aside the punishments dated 20.02.2023 of the writ petitioner, however the respondent authorities did not restore the writ petitioner to his original position prior to initiation of retrial proceeding as would be evident from page