Successive enquiries into the same allegations in administrative proceedings are impermissible under law, emphasizing the principle against double jeopardy.

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following relief:

“…..to declare the action of the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary in conducting successive enquiries on the same allegations regarding the clinical drug trials and set aside the enquiry pursuant to the G.O.Rt.No.151, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC-1) Department dated 26.04.2018 in terms of the C.B.C.I.D. report dated 28.02.2014 had gone in favour of the petitioner and set aside the same as it is a successive enquiry into the same charges is not permissible in law, to call for records; and pass such other order or orders…..”

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that there was a news item published in Vaartha Daily Newspaper on 23.06.2011 regarding allegations of clinical drug trails of one Dr.Nooka Raju, Chief Investigator and Professor of Phychiatry, Government Mental Hospital, Visakhapatnam, who is the petitioner herein. Basing on the said newspaper item, the Special Grade Deputy Collector, Visakhapatnam, directed the Principal of Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam stating that he was ordered by the Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for enquiry on drug trails in Government Hospital for Mental care. The C.I.D. Department conducted enquiry and said enquiry report reveals that there is no misappropriation by the petitioner herein and it is only done by professional jealousy. Despite the same, the respondents have formed articles of charge and by way of G.O.Rt.No.350 HM & FW dated 24.06.2015 directed for a fresh enquiry into the allegations of irregularities committed against the petitioner herein. However, the Government again issued G.O.Rt.No.151, dated 26.04.2018 appointing one Dr.Ravi Shankar Ayyanur I.P.S. to enquire into the charge and asked the petitioner to appear before the enquiry office on 19.07.2018 and that the petitioner has attended the enquiry and has submitted the available material to the respondents. Although the enquiry report is not communicated to the petitioner, it appears that a criminal misappropriation case was lodged against the petitioner. The petitioner herein sought for documents to enable him to submit his written explanation along with enquiry report dated 21.05.2019, but the same were not furnished to the petitioner by the respondent authorities. Further stated that more than six enquiries were conducted by the respondents only with an intention to put the petitioner into hardship and repeated enquiries cannot be conducted as per the law. Hence the present writ petition is filed.

3. On the other hand, the 1^st respondent filed counter. While denying the contents of the writ petition, it is stated that, a large scale criminal misappropriation with criminal conspiracy reported to have took place in clinical drug trails in Government Hospital for Mental Care, Visakhapatnam during the year 2000-2011 and the Government after careful examination of the matter, have decided to prosecute the petitioner being Professor of Psychiatry along with two other officials and conducted departmental proceedings against them. Aggrieved by the Government directions, the petitioner and ne Dr.V.Padma have filed W.P.Nos.1663 of 2019 and 1662 of 2019 before this Court questioning the action of the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam City to take steps to register FIR against the petitioner inspite of the CBCID report dated 28.02.2014 which was in their favour. Further submitted that against the Enquiry report dated 14.12.2018, the petitioner submitted his explanation, which was considered by the Government and concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner are held proved and proposed for imposition of major penalty of cut in 9% pension permanently against him under sub-rule 1 of Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 for the proved charges. Again, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.06.2022 as to why a major penalty of cut in 9% pension permanently ag