Second disciplinary proceedings for distinct charges do not violate double jeopardy, permitting simultaneous continuation with a criminal trial under specific circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the departmental proceeding which has been initiated against this petitioner vide memorandum dated 27.05.2023 (Annexure-3), issued by the respondent no.1; whereby the respondent company proposes to hold an enquiry against this petitioner under Rule 30.0 of the Coal India Executives Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules 2021.

3. Brief facts of the case as it appears from the averments made in this writ application is that petitioner joined CCL in the year 2013. On 30.09.2019, CBI registered an FIR bearing case no. RC 5(A)/2019- R based on the complaint of the Chief Vigilance Officer, CMPFO (Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization), Dhanbad alleging fraudulent withdrawal of provident fund of 38 ex-employees during the period 2015-18 amounting to Rs.1.70 Crores (approximately). Thereafter, on 18.09.2020 the disciplinary authority issued a memorandum bearing no. Ref No. CCL/VIG/RDA-06/20/2021/903 for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner herein and the Petitioner was found guilty vide Ref No. CCL/VIG/RDA-06/20/2021/1631 and was awarded the punishment of "Reduction to one stage lower in time scale for a period of six months without cumulative effect." On 27.05.2023, once again the Respondent No. 1 issued a memorandum on identical facts which was duly replied by the Petitioner and the respondent No.1 issued an order dated 06.09.2023 rejecting the reply of the Petitioner and decided to proceed and enquire into the charges against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

4. Mr. Shrestha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the initiation of the departmental proceeding on two grounds:

(i) For the same cause of action, the department has already initiated a full-fledged proceeding and thereafter a punishment has been imposed upon this petitioner vide order of punishment dated 3.12.2021 (Annexure-2) whereby penalty of deduction to one stage lower in time scale for a period of Six months without cumulative effect was passed. The petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid order of punishment and it has attained finality. Accordingly, the fresh initiation of departmental proceeding for the same cause of action is barred by law. In this regard he referred the judgment passed in the case of Lt. Governor, Delhi v. H.C. Narinder Singh , (2004) 13 SCC 342 . For brevity para-4 of the said order is quoted herein below:-

“4. Reading of the show-cause notice suggests as if it is in continuation of the departmental proceedings. Lack of devotion to duty is mentioned as the reason for the proposed action which was the subject-matter of the earlier proceedings as well. The second proposed action based on the same cause of action proposing to deny promotion or reversion is contemplated under the impugned show-cause notice. Second penalty based on the same cause of action would amount to double jeopardy. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in law in annulling such an action. We are not expressing any opinion on the ambit or scope of any rule.”

(ii) The next limb of argument is that if the court does not propose to quash the departmental proceeding, then at least since the cause of action and the charges in the departmental proceeding and that in the criminal proceedings are same and similar; the departmental proceeding may be stayed because it will be adversely affected the criminal proceeding. In this regard learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Sarvesh Berry , (2005) 10 SCC 471 whe