JUDGMENT

Kuldeep Mathur,J. - The instant intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.05.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner (appellant herein) challenging the charge sheet dated 28.10.2020 issued as per the provisions of Rawatbhata Rajasthan Site (NPCIL) Certified Standing Orders (hereinafter referred to as 'Standing Orders') was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant-writ petitioner is an employee of the respondent-organisation. The appellant-writ petitioner on 03.05.2013, was served with a charge-sheet for remaining absent from duties on various occasions during 28.09.2012 to 31.03.2013. It was further alleged that the appellant-writ petitioner is in habit of reporting late to the plant site late and leaving before time. Pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 03.05.2013, a departmental enquiry was conducted against appellant-writ-petitioner, in which he was found guilty. Consequently, a punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year, without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Yet an another charge-sheet dated 02.12.2014 came to be served upon the appellant-writ petitioner for remaining absent from duties for the following periods: 20.05.2014 to 04.11.2014, 06.11.2014 to 16.11.2014 and, thereafter from 19.11.2014 continuously. In the departmental enquiry initiated in furtherance of the charge-sheet dated 02.12.2014, the charges were found to be proved. Thereupon, disciplinary authority, vide order dated 19.06.2018, imposed penalty upon the appellant-writ petitioner of reduction to the lowest pay of Rs. 21,700/-, in Level-1 of Pay Matrix Column-3 for a period of five years, with immediate effect with the conditions that during the period of said reduction employee shall not earn any increments of pay. After the period of reduction of five years, his pay shall be restored as per his entitlement in Pay Matrix Column-3, which he was drawing or presumed to have been drawn by him on the date of the said reduction i.e. Rs. 26,000/-. Further, it was ordered that period of unauthorised absence i.e. from 20.05.2014 to 04.11.2014, 6.11.2014 to 16.11.2014 and 19.11.2014 to 02.12.2014 shall be treated as 'Dies-non'.

3. The impugned charge-sheet dated 28.10.2020 has been served upon appellant-writ petitioner containing following three charges: firstly, the appellant-writ petitioner remained absent from duties unauthorisedly for a total period of 1278 days between 01.01.2011 to 22.03.2020; secondly, during the aforesaid period, the appellant-writ petitioner on 391 occasions, came late to the plant site and left early; thirdly, the appellant-writ petitioner is habitual of remaining absent from duties without permission and justifiable reasons. Also, the appellant-writ petitioner is in habit of coming late to the plant site and leaving early. Looking to aforesaid conduct, on various occassions, letters and memorandum had been served upon the appellant-writ petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner submitted that for the charges levelled in the impugned charge-sheet dated 28.10.2020, the appellant-writ petitioner had already been penalised vide orders dated 28.03.2014 and 19.06.2018 by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, respondents cannot be permitted to punish him twice for the same offence as this would tantamount to double jeopardy. Learned counsel further submitted that issuance of the charge-sheet dated 28.10.2020, while the appellant-writ petitioner was under going the punishment/penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority for the same charges is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. To strengthen the aforementioned arguments, reliance was placed on the following judgments: Man Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. C.W. No.627/2001, Judicature of Bombay vs. Shashikant S Patil & Anr.: (2000) 1 SCC 416, Allahabad Bank vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari: (2017) 2 SCC 308,