The principle of double jeopardy applies in disciplinary proceedings, and a second charge memo and suspension for the same allegations, after exoneration in a previous enquiry, are not justified.

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.

1. These writ appeals are filed against the common order dated 11.10.2011 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P(MD)Nos.11392 and 11393 of 2011.

2. The case of the appellants before the learned single Judge in W.P.No.11392 of 2011 was to quash the order dated 27.8.2010 passed by the second respondent suspending the appellant under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, and not allowing the appellant to retire from service with effect from 31.8.2010 and direct the second respondent to allow the appellant to retire on 31.8.2010 with all consequential benefits to him.

3. In W.P.No.11393 of 2011 the very same appellant challenged the charge memo issued on 26.8.2010 by the second respondent.

4. By consent of both sides the writ appeals are taken up for final disposal.

5. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ appeals are that the appellant was appointed as Male Nursing Assistant in the year 1972 in Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur. He worked in various hospitals and lastly worked as an Operation Theatre Assistant in the Government Hospital, Sivagangai. On 17.8.2004 the second respondent issued a memo to appear for enquiry before the Deputy Director of Medical Sciences (Leprosy), Sivagangai at 11.00 a.m. on 18.8.2004 regarding the complaint received from the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. The complaint for which enquiry conducted was relating to an incident said to have taken place on 18.8.2003, based on the surprise inspection made on 18.8.2003 at 10.00 a.m. by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption in Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Sivagangai and the allegations were directed to be enquired against the appellant and another person.

6. The allegation levelled against the appellant is that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.150/- and Rs.170/- from one Indirani, wife of Kumar, who was treated in the Hospital and a sum of Rs.50/- was demanded by one Shankar, Hospital Employee for providing bed to the said Kumar. Disciplinary action was initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, by framing a charge. The appellant gave his statement of defence on 25.1.2005 and denied the allegation stating that the said Indirani and the said Kumar were not known to him and he had not demanded any money, and that, he has no practice of receiving money from the patients. A further representation was given on 22.1.2005. The second respondent, without considering the explanation, passed an order in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1896/N3/04 dated 19.8.2005 and imposed the punishment of withholding of increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect by giving a finding that the complaint given against the appellant by the said Indirani was proved.

7. The appellant filed departmental appeal before the first respondent against the said punishment order dated 19.8.2005 under Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The first respondent by his proceedings in Ref.No.95192/SC-1/1/2003 dated 6.6.2006 set aside the order of punishment on the ground that enquiry was not conducted as per Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 and directed the second respondent to restart the disciplinary case from where the defects have crept in. The second respondent thereafter cancelled the order of punishment by order on 13.12.2006 with liberty to conduct enquiry. On 5.4.2007 petitioner was called upon to attend the enquiry in Government Maruthupandiar Hospital, Tirupathur. Enquiry was conducted and thereafter final order was passed through proceedings Na.Ka.No.1896/E3/04 dt.22.12.2009 and exonerated the appellant from the charge framed/allegations made.

8. According to the appellant, without reference to the order passed on 22.12.2009, the second respondent again issued a charge memo under Rule 17(b) for the same allegat