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 :
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
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.
Second disciplinary proceeding on same charges without dropping first constitutes double jeopardy, violating Art.20(2).
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
