Jurisdiction to issue a second charge memo on the same allegation after the punishment on the first charge had been quashed by the appellate authority.

(Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in T.A.No.877 of 1993 and quash the order dated 20.6.2003 passed therein and direct the respondents 2 and 3 herein to drop all further proceedings in respect of the charge memo P.R.No.10/88 dated 28.2.2004.)

P.K. Misra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.

2. Even though the matter has been listed for considering the question of continuation of interim order of stay, since the very same question is involved in the writ petition, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal on merits.

3. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.877 of 1993, dated 20.6.2003. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner was serving as Police Constable. A charge memo was issued in the year 1978 in P.R.No.164/78 on the allegation that the petitioner had conducted himself in highly reprehensible and indisciplinary manner in having effected unauthorised prohibition raid on 2.3.19 78 at Kanakanthal and Thimmachur in mufti while on sub-jail guard duty. After enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service. However, the petitioner filed appeal, which was considered by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chingleput Range, Chennai-18. The appellate authority set aside the order of dismissal and directed that the present writ petitioner should be reinstated in service and the period out of employment should be treated as duty period. It is not disputed that thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service. Subsequently, after a lapse of about six years, a fresh disciplinary proceeding bearing No.1/PR/52/85 dated 23.3.1985 was initiated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram against the petitioner on the following charge:

"Highly reprehensible and indisciplinary conduct in having effected unauthorised prohibition raid on 2.3.78 at Kanakanandal and Thimmachur in mufti while on Subjail guard duty. "

The statement of allegation in the subsequent charge is same as the statement of allegation in the earlier charge, namely in P.R.No.164/78 . The petitioner challenged such charge memo bearing No.1/P.R.52/85 by filing W.P.No.12301 of 1987 and an order of interim stay was passed in such writ petition on 10.12.1987. Subsequently, on establishment of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, such writ petition stood transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and it was renumbered as T.A.No.877 of 1993. Such T.A. has been disposed of by the Tribunal by passing the following order:

"This application is filed by Thiru.K.Damodaran employed as Police Constable, Villiyanur, praying to quash the charge memo served on him in P.R.No.52/85. The applicant is charged for reprehensible and indisciplinary conduct in having effected unauthorized prohibition raid on 2.3.1978 at Kanakanandal and Thimmachur in mufti while on Sub-Jail Guard Duty. There is nothing improper or illegal about the charge memo. The applicant is not authorised to conduct any prohibition raid. The applicant was on other duty, during which, he has gone to certain villages in mufti and conducted prohibition raids, obviously, for the purpose of extracting bribe or illegal gratification. The application is filed in the year 1987 as Writ Petition before the High Court. No stay has been granted. Disciplinary proceedings must have bee proceeded with and the applicant must have been dealt with as per the rules. In view of the long lapse of time, the application is dismissed as infructuous."

4. Such order of the Tribunal is now under challenge in the present writ petition. At the time of admission of the present writ petition, an order of interim stay has been granted on 17.11.2004. On a bare perusal of the order passed by