Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1634
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Justice Om Prakash, J, Mr. Mohan Pyare, A
G P Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
O.A./220/2010
Sri K.P Singh, Shri Mukesh Kumar
Subsequent disciplinary punishments imposed after an applicant has already served a prior punishment are impermissible and constitute double jeopardy.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - The case involves the legality of punishment orders dated 30.12.2003, 29.07.2009, and 25.04.2011, which were challenged by the legal heirs of the deceased applicant. The Tribunal found that the original applicant had already served the punishment imposed in 1988, and the subsequent orders were contrary to the principles established in Nyadar Singh v. Union of India, 1984 (4) SCC 70. (Paras 9-14)
(B) Double Jeopardy - The Tribunal ruled that the imposition of multiple punishments for a single act constituted double jeopardy, which is impermissible under law. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
The original applicant, appointed in 1979, faced disciplinary action leading to a reversion and pay reduction. His appeals were rejected, and he subsequently filed an OA that was decided in his favor in 1995, but later punishments were imposed.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal quashed the orders of punishment, stating they were not sustainable as the applicant had already served the initial punishment.
Issues: The main issues were whether the subsequent punishments were lawful and if they constituted double jeopardy.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal emphasized that the applicant had already served his punishment, and the subsequent orders violated the established legal principles.
Result: The OA is allowed, and the impugned orders are set aside.
Key Points: - Original applicant was punished in 1988 and later had subsequent punishments quashed due to served punishment and Nyadar Singh ratio (!) (!) (!) - Tribunal held that multiple punishments for a single act constitute double jeopardy and were impermissible, directing quashing of 1988–era orders and applying Nyadar Singh ratio (!) (!) (!) - Nyadar Singh (supra) provides that where punishment involves reduction in rank and the period of service in the lower post may be treated as service in the original post without monetary benefits, avoiding fresh penalties (!) (!) (!) - OA allowed; impugned orders dated 30.12.2003, 29.07.2009, 25.04.2011 set aside; consequential benefits to be extended to heirs as if the original applicant had remained in service (!) - Appellate and revisional actions enhancing punishment after prior served punishment were found improper under Nyadar Singh and were set aside (!) (!) - Reference to Nyadar Singh judgment: reduction in rank to a lower post should not result in new punishments if the period of reduction has ended and status should revert with no monetary gains during the lower post (!) (!) - Order directs extension of all consequential benefits to the applicants (legal heirs) as if the original applicant remained in service until superannuation (!) - Recovery of dues and show-cause procedures were considered but not upheld to sustain renewed punishments post served punishment (!) (!) - Tribunal concluded there is no need to remit for fresh penalty where period of reduction has elapsed and the individual has been restored or treated as in original post (!) (!) - The OA was allowed; respondents directed to comply within three months and no costs awarded; all associated MAs disposed of (!)
What is the legality of subsequent disciplinary punishments imposed after a prior punishment has been served?
What are the limits of double jeopardy in the context of disciplinary actions for a single act?
What reliefs and consequential benefits should be granted when prior punishments have already been served, as per Nyadar Singh guidance?
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
By means of present O.A., the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
“(A) Issue suitable order direction may be issued to the respondents authorities to quash the impugned punishment order 30.12.2003 (Annexure -3), 29.07.2009 (Annexure 1) & 25.04.2011 (Annexure 1(A) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority & Revisional Authority will all consequential benefits.
(a) Issue suitable order direction may be issued to the respondents authorities to quash the impugned order dated 29.07.2009 & 25.04.2011 passed by Appellate Authority & Revisional Authority with all consequential benefits.
(b) Issue any order suitable or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case of applicant.
(c) To award costs of this application to the applicant”.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the original applicant, who was appointed to a clerical position on 25.05.1979, died during the pendency of this OA and his legal heirs have been substituted. He was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry resulting in his reversion to a lower cadre for five years and a pay reduction by five stages. His appeal and memorial representation against that order were rejected in the year 1989. Subsequently, the applicant filed OA No. 991 of 1989, claiming that his reversion from Group ‘C’ to Group ‘D’ was unlawful. The Tribunal decided the aforesaid OA in favour of applicant on 29.09.1995, setting aside the disciplinary authority’s order and orders passed by the appellate authority and memorial order directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant in light of the Nyadar Singh Versus Union of India and others reported in 1984 (4) SCC 70 . However, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment on 30.12.2003. The applicant filed appeal, but during its pendency, a show cause notice for enhancement of punishment was issued. Meanwhile, the respondents ordered recovery of dues on 28.01.2008, which the Tribunal stayed in OA No. 432 of 2009. The Appellate Authority enhanced the punishment to removal from service on 29.07.2009, and the Revisional Authority dismissed the applicant’s revision on 25.04.2011. Accordingly, applicant in the instant OA sought to set aside the orders dated 30.12.2003, 29.07.2009, and 25.04.2011.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it has been submitted that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was enhanced after serving a show cause notice to the original applicant. The original applicant was reinstated, but upon enhancement of punishment, he was subsequently removed from service. Dues permissible to the applicant have already been paid. The impugned orders are in conformity with the ratio decidendi of Nyadar Singh (supra) case.
4. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicants in which the applicants have reiterated the facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the counter affidavit. Nothing new has been asserted in the rejoinder affidavit.
5. We have heard Shri K.P Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
6. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the original applicant has died and the present applicants are the legal heirs of the original applicant. Referring to the facts disclosed in the amended OA, learned counsel for the applicant states that initially original applicant was given appointment after relaxing the age and qualification in the clerical grade on 25.05.1979. A chargesheet was served upon him and after the conclusion of the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment reverting to the original applicant to the lower cadre for 5 years, and pay was fixed to the pay scale to five stages below in the lower cadre. Applicant preferred appeal against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, which was decided on 13.0
