Double jeopardy principle prohibits subjecting an individual to repeated inquiries for the same misconduct once exonerated.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. 

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 09.09.1999 (Annexure P-8), order dated 26.07.2000 (Annexure P-9) and order dated 03.11.2000 (Annexure P-10) passed by the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that admittedly the petitioner was custodian of the wheat stock in question in the year 1984-85 and 1985-86. He was served a charge-sheet on 03.08.1987 with the allegation that he was joint custody of the wheat stock for the crop year 1984 to 1986. Further at the time of taking over the stocks by Sh. Rajinder Singh, Branch Officer and Sh. Gurnam Singh, Field Officer, wheat shortage was detected. Pursuant to the charge-sheet (Annexure P-1), departmental inquiry was initiated and after a detailed inquiry, charges levelled against the petitioner with regard to charge No.1 and Charge No.2 regarding misappropriation of the wheat stock during the year 1984 to 1986 worth of Rs.2,03,999.87 were not proven as no shortage/loss was caused by him to the organization. The Managing Director of the respondent- Corporation dropped the charges levelled against petitioner vide order dated 01.03.1990 (Annexure P-3). Surprisingly, on 09.04.1991 after a gap of 4 years, another charge-sheet with regard to misappropriation of wheat stock pertaining to year 1984-85, was issued against the petitioner on the ground of negligence in maintaining the wheat stock. It amounts to double jeopardy, as the petitioner has suffered the disciplinary proceedings in which he has already been exonerated and charges were dropped by the competent authority. Inordinate delay in vitiating the disciplinary proceedings is liable to be set aside solely on the ground of delay. Further the inquiry officer has concluded that keeping in view the storage condition and span of storage, damage to stocks were inevitable, however, at the same time the inquiry officer observed that he believes that damage could have been minimized if the open stocks in question were despatched on priority over covered stocks. The observation given by the inquiry officer is contrary to the facts of the case, as despatch of the wheat stock is not within the domain or jurisdiction of the petitioner. Chargesheet was issued for causing loss by twisting the facts and circumstances of the matter and further the finding of the inquiry officer suffers from irrationality. The punishing authority has merely acted as a postmaster and without recording any dissent with the findings of the inquiry officer passed the order of punishment in a mechanical manner. As such, the counsel prays for quashing of the impugned orders.

3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation has considered the factual matrix and the findings of the inquiry officer and has reduced the recovery to 50% to be paid in equal proportionate by petitioner and his co-employee. As such, the scope of the judicial review would be very limited. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority. Thereafter, petitioner filed the revision petition under Rule 14(d) of the Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1990. Further, he refers to the order passed by the Revisional authority and submits that the lapse and the laxity of petitioner was not maintaining the health of stock, is duly noticed. During that period he was the custodian of the stock and has not mad