Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Avtar Singh Bains – Appellant
Versus
Registrar Cooperative Societies Punjab, Chandigarh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial charge and exoneration details. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. communication regarding storage condition. (Para 4) |
| 3. discussion on the charge sheets and findings. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. principle of double jeopardy and its application. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's final orders and directives. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
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.
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
Double jeopardy principle prohibits subjecting an individual to repeated inquiries for the same misconduct once exonerated.
Issuing a second charge-sheet based on previously unproven allegations is impermissible under the principle of public policy, reinforcing protection against double jeopardy in disciplinary proceeding....
A second disciplinary enquiry on the same charges is impermissible and constitutes double jeopardy, violating the principles of law.
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice; absence of adequate evidence and procedural compliance renders such actions void.
The importance of proving charges in departmental proceedings and the principle that suspicion is not a substitute for proof.
Opportunity for adjudication before recovery order is essential, and the absence of the petitioner's name in the Vigilance Officer's report can influence the court's decision.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
