Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. B. Misra, J.
RAM NATH SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 11124 Of 1989
Decided On : 03/15/2002
Double Jeopardy - Service Dismissal - Article 311(2) - Ghanshyam Das Srivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 1183 - Captain M, Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Ors., 1999 (2) AWC 1579 (SC) - Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2000 (4) AWC 2982 (SC) - Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madras and Anr. v. F. X. Farnando, 1994 (2) SCC 746 - Subhash Chand Sharma v. M. D., U. P. Co-operative spl. Mills Fed. ltd., 1999 (4) AWC 3227 - Radhey Shyam Pandey v. Chief Secretary, State of uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Ors., 2001 (3) AWC 2043 - Dwarkachand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1958 raj 38 - State of Assam v. J. N. Boy Biswas, AIR 1975 SC 2277 - Hirdaya Narayan Prasad v. State of bihar, 1975 Lab IC 640 Pat - Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court, New Delhi and Anr., (1980) 4 SCC 443 - A. L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Limited, AIR 1984 SC 1361 - Dipti Prakash Banerjee a Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, calcutta and Ors., 1999 (2) AWC 1184 (SC) - State Bank of India and Ors. v. T. J. Paul, (1999) 4 SCC 759 - Hardwari Lal v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2000 (1) AWC 96 (SC) - Prabhudayal Birari v. M. P. Rajya Nagrik Aapurti Nigam Ltd., 2000 (4) AWC 2951 (SC) - Municipal Corporation of Delhi (M. C. D.) v. Prem Chand Gupta and Anr., (2000) 10 SCC 115 - Vinod Bhanti u. State of Bihar and Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 146 - Ex-Constable Chhote Lal v. Union of India and Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 196 - Director of Collegiate Education and Anr. v. Sri Jagadguru Panchacharya Vishwa Dharma vidya Peetha and Ors., (2000) 10 SCC 200 - Assistant General Manager, S. B. I. v. Thomas Jone and Anr., (2000) 10 SCC 280
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of subordinate Agriculture Services, was dismissed from service and an amount was directed to be recovered from him. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order on the grounds of double jeopardy, res judicata, and violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second dismissal order was not legally permissible as the petitioner had been exonerated on similar charges in the first inquiry. The court set aside the dismissal order and ruled that no amount shall be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was reinstated with 50% of the wages for the past.
Issues: The issues involved double jeopardy, res judicata, violation of principles of natural justice, and entitlement to back wages upon reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the second dismissal order was not legally permissible as the petitioner had been exonerated on similar charges in the first inquiry. The court also considered various legal principles related to the entitlement of back wages upon reinstatement.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the dismissal order was set aside, and no amount was to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was reinstated with 50% of the wages for the past.
Key Points: - Double jeopardy principle prohibits a second inquiry and dismissal on similar charges after exoneration (!) (!) (!) . - Failure to provide a reasonable opportunity to defend oneself violates natural justice and invalidates the dismissal order (!) (!) (!) . - Where dismissal is set aside, reinstatement with 50% of past wages is appropriate in the absence of exceptional circumstances (!) (!) (!) .
( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 12. 5. 1989/ 1. 6. 1989 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and amount of Rs. 2,21,671. 37 was directed to be recovered from the petitioner and to quash the recovery certificate issued on the basis of the same (Annexure-4 ). Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri P. N. Roy and Sri S. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents.
( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the petitioner was a member of subordinate Agriculture Services, Group II (Development) and his appointment was made with the approval of U. P. Public Service Commission in short called commission and was working as buffer Godown Inspector posted at Basti under the District Agricultural Officer, the respondent No. 3. The petitioner was served a charge-sheet on 22. 2. 1975 and supplementary charge-sheet on 15. 3. 1978. On the basis of report of the inquiry officer the petitioner was dismissed from service on 16. 10. 1980, which was challenged before the U. P. Public Service tribunal, where dismissal order was set aside on 1. 3. 1982. Being dissatisfied the respondents, approached this Court and this Court had been pleased to remand the case to the Tribunal to decide the case on merits. In compliance thereto, learned Tribunal reconsidered the matter and quashed the dismissal by its order dated 20. 12. 1984 and also directed that the amount not recoverable from the petitioner. In compliance to the above order the petitioner was reinstated with arrears of back wages.
( 3 ) IT appears another attempt was made by the department to initiate departmental inquiry by appointing the Project Officer, (Agricultural) Basti, an inquiry officer to make departmental inquiry under the classification, control and appeal rules as applicable for U. P. Civil Service and a fresh charge-sheet dated 31. 1. 1986 was served to the petitioner (on 7. 2. 1986 comprising of the same and identical charges as mentioned in the earlier charge-sheet) placing him under suspension. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13151 of 1986 before this Court and the suspension of the petitioner was stayed on 22. 10. 1986. The Writ Petition No. 13151 of 1986 filed by the petitioner was withdrawn as the petitioner was reinstated on 10. 11. 1986. The petitioner had been working thereafter continued to work in Basti till 23. 7. 1986 after that he was transferred to district Ballia, where he was served a dismissal order on 12. 5. 1989/1. 6. 1989 (Annexure-1) which indicates that :
"sri Ram Nath Singh, ex-Buffer Godown Inspector and buffer, district Deoria, Salempur, district Basti is dismissed from service. The department shall recover an amount of Rs. 2,21,671. 37 by way of compensation to the loss incurred to the Government by his security, amounts payable and other legal process. "
( 4 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that no departmental inquiry could be started on the second time and that two punishments cannot be imposed on the petitioner, first being the dismissal and the second for the recovery of this huge amount from the petitioner.
( 5 ) IT has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that by the earlier order dated 20. 12. 1984 the dismissal order of the petitioner on the similar charges was set aside by learned tribunal and recovery consequent upon was rejected. The order dated 12. 8. 1984 of Tribunal was never challenged and the same become absolute and final. Therefore, for the same and similar charges for which the petitioner has already been exonerated, again a fresh dismissal order cannot be passed, i. e. , punishing the petitioner twice and second time on the charges and for the same cause of action i. e. , the norms of double Jeopardy as provided under Article 20 of the constitution of India
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
