The main legal point established is that the second disciplinary proceeding was not permissible under the CRPF Act and CRPF Rules, invoking the principle of double jeopardy.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

The petitioner, who is a quondam employee of Central Reserve Police Force ('CRPF'), Manipur, assails the order of dismissal from service passed by the Commandant 52nd Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Manipur, as well as the order of Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, Bhubaneswar, appellate authority vide Annexures-5 & 6 respectively.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short fact of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in CRPF on 02.03.1983. He was transferred to Manipur in the year 1998 as Head Constable and posted at Imphal. On 01.11.1999 at about 23.25 hours, he failed to keep the AK-47 rifle in safe custody. There was a scuffle between the petitioner and his colleague-Deep Singh as a result of which, eight rounds were fired from his service rifle resulting death of Deep Singh. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Chargesheet was issued in respect of four allegations. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. After examining the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report stating that charges have not been proved. But then, the Disciplinary Authority proposed to initiate the second departmental enquiry and issued chargesheet, vide Annexure-3. He submitted show-cause. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report stating that the charges have been proved. A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to him on 15.04.2001. He submitted his reply on 23.04.2001. The Commandant 52nd Battalion, CRPF, Manipur dismissed him from service on 30.04.2001, vide Annexure-5. Unsuccessful petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Bhubaneswar, opposite party no.2, which was eventually dismissed, vide Annexure-6.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed justifying the stand of the opposite parties for initiating the second disciplinary proceeding and imposing punishment of dismissal.

4. Heard Mr. Sanjat Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Padhi, learned Central Government Counsel for the opposite party nos.1 and 2.

5. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 01.11.2019, while the petitioner was sleeping at the Head Quarter in Manipur, he felt that somebody had taken away his weapon. He woke up and caught hold of him. There was a scuffle between them, as a result of which, the weapon went off. He sustained injuries. His colleague Deep Singh died on the spot due to accidental firing. Thereafter, FIR was lodged against him. He is facing criminal trial. The Disciplinary Authority initiated a disciplinary proceeding against him. Number of witnesses had been examined by the Department. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report stating that charges had not been proved against him. However, a second departmental proceeding initiated against him for the self-same charges, which is not permissible under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 ('CRPF Act') and Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 ('CRPF Rules'). Thus the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority, vide Annexure-5, and the order passed by the Appellate Authority, vide Annexure-6, are vitiated. To buttress the submission, he places reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in the case of K.R. Deb vs. The Collector of Central Excise Shillong, (1971) AIR SC 1447 and The State of Assam and another vs. J.N. Roy Biswas, (1975) AIR SC 2277.

6. Per contra, Mr. Padhi, learned CGC for the opposite parties submits that there was shortcomings in the first departmental enquiry. In view of the same, opposite party no.1 by order dated 03.12.2000 directed for initiation of a fresh proceeding against the petitioner. Sufficient opportunity was provided to him. He participated in the second enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report stating that charges have been proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority had passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service, which is upheld by the Appellate Authority. He further submits that since the petitioner has