Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4602
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash VII, Judicial Member, Mohan Pyare, Administrative Member
Santosh Kumar Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 330/01043/2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha
For the Respondents: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
Second disciplinary proceeding on same charges without dropping first constitutes double jeopardy, violating Art.20(2).
Headnote:The applicant, an Assistant Station Master, faced disciplinary proceedings for allegedly forging documents to obtain a bank loan. A first charge sheet resulted in minor penalty, but a second charge sheet on identical charges led to removal from service, later modified on appeal and revision. Court found second proceedings violated rules against successive inquiries on same misconduct without dropping prior charges. Issues framed: validity of second charge sheet incorporating first's imputations without reasons or dropping prior proceedings. Ratio: prohibits fresh disciplinary action on same charges post-punishment, constituting double jeopardy under Art.20(2); cited precedents affirming no second inquiry after exoneration or punishment on same cause. OA allowed; all impugned orders from second charge sheet set aside, restoring applicant to pre-punishment position with full service benefits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant challenges second charge sheet and penalties on loan forgery. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties dispute validity of successive proceedings and repayments. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. charge memos identical, violating rules against repeat inquiries. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. precedents prohibit second action as double jeopardy under art.20(2). (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. impugned orders quashed, service restored with benefits. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
“(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned second charge sheet dated 16.7.2008 issued by DOM- II, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi (Disciplinary Authority) (Annexure A-1) , Inquiry Report dated 19.1.2009 communicated vide letter dated 29.1.2009 (Annexure A-2), Order of removal from service passed by DOM -II/NER/ Varanasi vide NIP dated 28.4.2009 ( Annexure A-3), appellate order passed vide letter dated 5.10.2009 passed by Sr. DOM, N. E. Railway, Varanasi (Annexure A-4) and order dated 04.01.2011 (Annexure-A-4/1)and revisional order dated 21.12.2009 passed by Revisional Authority ( ADRM / NER / Varanasi) (Annexure A-5) and give all consequential benefits which would be admissible to the applicant after setting aside all the aforesaid impugned orders as if these orders were not passed..
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to allow arrears of difference of pay, due promotion etc. which would be admissible on allowing the present O.A.
(iii) Any other order or direction or writ which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, may also kindly be passed.
(iv) Cost of the application may also be awarded.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Assistant Station Master, N.E. Railway, Deoria took loan of Rs. One lakh from State Bank of India, Medical College Branch, Gorakhpur on 30.06.2003 by furnishing sureties required by the Bank. The applicant could not pay the instalments of SBI due to his illness. On 26.04.2005, a major penalty charge sheet was issued on charges framed by Sr. DOM /N.E.Rly. Varanasi (D.A.) that applicant had taken loan on 30.6.2003 of Rs. One lakh on the basis of alleged forged salary certificate from SBI/Medical College Branch, Gorakhpur and did not repay the loan to the bank. It was also alleged that he took loan by making fake signature on salary certificate. Enquiry proceeding was conducted by nominating an enquiry officer of gazetted rank viz. Area Manager, NER./CTC Gorakhpur. On 11.07.2007, Enquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report in which charges against the applicant were not proved after considering the evidence on record. The Sr. DOM/ N.E.Rly. Varanasi (D.A) imposed the major penalty of reduction in one stage below for a period of one year with cumulative effect vide order dated 21.11.2007. Preliminary investigation was conducted by CVI A/Cs Gorakhpur as the Bank had filed a court case implicating Rly. Officer viz. GM/NER/Gorakhpur. Latter 'No dues certificate' was issued by said Bank and copy given to CVI/NER/Gorakhpur who was investigating the matter. The second / fresh charge sheet dated 16.07.2008 was issued at the behest of the Vigilance Department was not in conformity with the mandate laid down by the Railway Board vide its Circular No.171/93. It is quite well settled that without dropping the earlier charge sheet and without stating adequate reasons for starting a fresh disciplinary proceeding, a fresh charge sheet cannot be issued as held by the Hon’ble CAT, Calcutta in the case of Bhupati Kumar Sardar Vs. Union of India and Ors. in TA No.1073 of 1986 decided on 08.07.1988. After submitting defence note on 30.12.2008, the enquiry report was submitted on 19.01.2009 which was communicated by DOM-II to applicant. Applicant
