A second departmental enquiry on similar allegations, of which the petitioner has already been exonerated in the earlier departmental enquiry, is impermissible without resorting to the provisions of Rule 29 of CCA Rules, 1966.

JUDGMENT :

1. Shri Prashant Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.

2. Shri AK Nirankari, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.

3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the charge sheet (Annexure P1) on the ground that the subsequent charge sheet amounts to double jeopardy, because earlier also, for the same allegations a Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and he was exonerated of the charges.

4. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on certain allegations. A Departmental Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Pargana Mehagaon, District Bhind submitted its enquiry report dated 06/02/2014 (Annexure P3) giving a finding that the recruitment proceedings were conducted by a Committee, in which the petitioner was one of the Members apart from the In-charge Officer, Land Records and Deputy Collector. The entire recruitment proceedings were conducted by the Committee and, therefore, only one Member of the said Committee cannot be held liable. The Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement by its order dated 24/09/2014 accepted the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and exonerated the petitioner from all the charges which were levelled against him. Thereafter, the second charge sheet was issued on the said allegations.

5. The respondents have filed their return and they have accepted that by order dated 24/09/2014 the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges which were levelled against him in the first enquiry. However, one complaint was also made to the Lokayukt which is pending and the notices were issued and the explanations were also called and in pursuance of direction of the Lokayukt, the respondents have issued the second charge sheet. It is mentioned in the return that since the Lokayukt is a necessary party and it has not been impleaded as a respondent, therefore, the present petition suffers from mis-joinder of necessary party.

Paragraph 5.3 and 5.3 of the return reads as under:-

''5.2. That, contents as mentioned in this para are matter of record. The detail reply has also been submitted hereinabove. It is respectfully submitted that on the account of illegality and complaint before Lokayukt the charge sheet has been issued and steps has been taken against the petitioner.

5.3. That, the averments made in this para are matter of record. However it is pertinent to mention here that in the first enquiry the enquiry officer the petitioner is found guilty whereas the in the second enquiry he has been exonerated and therefore the principle of resjudicata in case of petitioner also applicable with the equal force.''

6. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that he was earlier exonerated of the similar charges which have been levelled against him in the second charge sheet, has not been disputed by the respondents. However, it is the contention of the respondents that the second charge sheet has been issued under the instructions of the Lokayukt.

7. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the respondents has failed to point out any provision of law to show that the Lokayukt had any authority/power to discard the findings recorded in a full-fledged Departmental Enquiry. The respondents could not point out any provision to show that the Lokayukt has powers of an appellate authority against the order of exoneration. The respondents have also failed to show that the powers of review as provided under Rule 29 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 [in short '' CCA Rules, 1966] have been exercised. Once an order has been passed under CCA Rules, 1966, then the said order can be reviewed only in accordance with the provisions of Rule 29 of the CCA Rules, 1966. Even if the Lokayukt was of the view that the order thereby exonerating the petitioner from all the cha