Issuing a second charge-sheet based on previously unproven allegations is impermissible under the principle of public policy, reinforcing protection against double jeopardy in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Manan Paneri on behalf of the learned Advocate Mr. Deepak M. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Hardik Soni on behalf of the respondent no. 2 and learned Advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw for the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought to assail an order passed by the respondent no. 6-Gujarat State Land Development Corporation dated 03.09.2007 confirmed vide order dated 24.12.2007, more particularly, whereby the petitioner has been imposed with punishment of being placed in the lowest scale in the cadre of Head Clerk for a period of one year without future effect.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Paneri would submit that in the present case, the petitioner has been punished after a departmental inquiry for charges for which the petitioner had faced an inquiry which has resulted in issuance of a warning to the petitioner. Learned Advocate Mr. Paneri would submit that originally a Charge-sheet has been issued to the present petitioner on 05.11.2004, inter-alia, alleging violation of Rule 3(1)(3) and Rule 3(A) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. Learned Advocate for the petitioner would draw attention of this Court to the articles of charge, whereby it is inter-alia, alleged that during the year 2003, when the petitioner was working as a Head Clerk in the Ahmedabad office of the respondent Corporation, he had the habit of speaking very loudly and to use unparliamentary words with the other employees and whereas a specific reference is made to a complaint/Communication dated 10.04.2003. It is also alleged that the petitioner by using such unparliamentary words, was indulging in sexual harassment of female employees of the respondent Corporation. Learned Advocate would thereafter draw attention of this Court to the order passed by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation dated 27.02.2005, whereby the Managing Director has inter-alia after referring to the allegations against the petitioner has stated that the inquiry could not prove the allegations of mental and physical harassment of female employees by the petitioner and whereas it is alleged that on 15.12.2002, the petitioner during a function of the Corporation had indulged in misbehavior with other employees of the Corporation and whereas it is stated that since the petitioner was in habit of using unparliametary words and speaking very loudly, the petitioner was issued a warning. It appears that the said punishment had not been questioned by the present petitioner.

3.1 Learned Advocate would submit that thereafter the respondent Corporation had issued a second Charge-sheet dated 22.12.2005 to the petitioner and whereas learned Advocate would also take this Court to the articles of charges. Learned Advocate would submit that except the Charge No. 2.1 whereby an allegation is levelled that the petitioner was in the habit of harassing a particular employee namely, one, Mr. V.K. Vihol, substantially all other allegations were similar to the allegations made against the petitioner in the first Charge-sheet. Learned Advocate would submit that the similarity between the charges was on account of the fact that the first Charge-sheet had been issued relying upon the letter/complaint written by some female staff workers on 10.04.2003 and whereas even in the second Charge-sheet, the same letter is made one of the basis for levelling allegations against the petitioner.

3.2 Learned Advocate would submit that at that stage, being aggrieved by the Charge-sheet issued against the petitioner on 22.10.2005 i.e. the second Charge-sheet, the petitioner had approached this Court by preferring Spe