A government servant cannot be punished twice for the same offense.

1. - This petition has been filed with a prayer that order dated August 30, 1988 (Ex. 12), by which, the petitioner was given punishment by the Disciplinary Authority and order dated August 18, 1989 (Ex. 17), by which, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of petitioner and enhanced the punishment be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner was working as Inspector in the office of respondent No. 1 and was served with a charge-sheet on May 31, 1933, the copy of which has been filed and marked Ex. 1. The petitioner filed his reply on July 29, 1983, the copy of which has been produced and marked Ex. 2. Witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents as also on behalf of the petitioner, copies of whose statements have been filed and marked Ex. 3 to Ex. 10. The Disciplinary Authority inflicted a punishment of censure against the petitioner vide order dated August 30, 1988 (Ex. 12).

3. The contention of Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel, is that copy of enquiry report was not given to the petitioner inspite of his letter dated September 14, 1988 (Ex. 13). The petitioner had, therefore, no alternate remedy, but to file the appeal within limitation, the copy of which is marked Ex. 15. It is further submitted that the respondents acted illegally in denying the supply of copy vide letter dated December 1, 1988 (Ex. 16). The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide its order dated August 18, 1989 (Ex. 17), but to the surprise of the petitioner, the punishment awarded to him was enhanced by withholding one grade increment with cumulative effect. It is submitted by the learned counsel that no notice or hearing was given to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority before enhancing the punishment awarded to the petitioner. It is contended that in this way, the petitioner has been punished twice disregarding the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, neither any notice nor any hearing was given to him before the order of enhancement was passed. The learned counsel has also raised several objections regarding legality of the enquiry and punishment awarded to him by the Appellate Authority and has submitted that Article 311(2) of the Constitution has been violated, as no show-cause notice was given to him. It is also submitted that there was no application of mind either by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority while passing the orders mentioned above.

4. In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, the contentions raised in the writ petition by petitioner have been denied. It is submitted by Shri Sadarangani, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Disciplinary Authority is not bound to accept or ditto the findings of the Enquiry Officer and was within its right to defer from the report of the Enquiry Officer and draw its own conclusion on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record. The Disciplinary Authority has given reasoned order by imposing minor penalty of censure, after giving a speaking order (Ex. 12), which is self-explanatory. The Disciplinary Authority found petitioner to have acted negligently for not informing the higher authorities regarding the lapses, nor seeking order for taking proper action of demolition of unauthorised construction. It is further submitted that the enquiry was conducted under CCA Rules and sub-clause (11) of Rule 16 permits the imposition of minor penalty without affording any further chance of hearing. Therefore, the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India have no application in case of minor penalty like censure. It is also contended that the Appellate Authority enhanced the punishment, after hearing the petitioner as per JDA (CCA) Regulations, 1984 and CCA Rules. The contention of the learned counsel is that the Appellate Authority acted within its jurisdiction by enhancing the punishment.

5. I have heard both the learned counsel and also gone through the pleadings and docu