The main legal point established in the judgment is that the subject matter of the earlier departmental enquiry must be different from the subject matter of the fresh enquiry, and the authority of the competent authority to propose an enhanced penalty under Rule 29(d) of the CRPF Rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged order No. III/Adm/15/Vol-II/2000-15032 dated 27.07.2002 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby a direction has been issued for conducting fresh enquiry and at the same time, enhanced penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner has also been proposed. Challange has also been thrown to the order No. Estt/9460409/GCJ/02(E)/10951 dated 09.08.2002 issued by respondent No. 6, whereby fresh charges have been framed against the petitioner.

2. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as constable in Sashastra Seema Bal(SSB) on 16.09.1994. While serving at Group Centre Gangyal, Jammu, he was allowed to handle the Pay Disbursement Register and Acquaintance Roll pertaining to payments of company personnel. It was alleged that he managed to misappropriate Rs. 77,284/- by making overwriting and cutting in the Acquaintance Roll and Pay Disbursement Register which resulted in less payment of claims of 70 company personnel on 210 occasions. Thus charges of negligence, remissness and misconduct under section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, which was applicable to the SSB at the relevant time, were framed. Court of enquiry was conducted from 28.01.2001 to 17.09.2001 and the Board of Officers recommended suitable action against the petitioner.

3. Vide his endorsement dated 30.09.2001, the Commandant agreed with findings of the enquiry proceedings conducted by the court of enquiry and ordered initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner. An enquiry officer was appointed in terms of order issued on 06.11.2001 and an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in terms of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955. After conducting a detailed enquiry, the petitioner was awarded punishment of 28 days quarter-guard with forfeiture of pay and allowance of that period as also recovery of the misappropriated amount. The said penalty is stated to have been executed by the respondents against the petitioner.

4. Vide impugned order dated 22.07.2002 issued by respondent No. 3, penalty awarded against the petitioner has been proposed to be enhanced to the penalty of dismissal from service and another enquiry has been directed to be initiated against the petitioner. In this regard, a fresh memorandum of charges issued vide impugned memorandum dated 09.08.2002 has been served upon the petitioner and an enquiry officer has also been appointed by the respondents.

5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order whereby enhanced penalty has been proposed against him and at the same time, a fresh enquiry has been ordered against him on the grounds that once in respect of a particular allegation, enquiry has been conducted and punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner, he cannot be subjected to another enquiry on the same allegations. It has been further conducted that respondent No. 3 is neither competent nor does he have power to revise and enhance the punishment imposed upon the petitioner and that he cannot direct initiation of fresh enquiry against him.

6. The respondents in their reply have contended that after completion of court of enquiry proceedings, the report of court of enquiry was considered and departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner only in respect of the misappropriation of Mess Security Advance(MSA), whereas no enquiry was made with regard to insertion of government accounts in Acquaintance Roll and Pay Distribution Register, whereby the petitioner had misappropriated an amount of more than Rs. 70,000/-. The stand of the respondents is that the subject matter of the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner in terms of impugned memorandum dated 09.08.2002 is entirely different from the subject matter of the departmental enquiry in respect of which enquiry report was already rendered by the enquiry officer pursuant to which penalty has been imposed upon him. Thus according to the respondents, it is not a case of second enquiry in respect of the same allegations