Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2171
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
Imposing multiple punishments for a single act violates service law principles, particularly against double jeopardy, as established in Nyadar Singh v. Union of India.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - The applicant sought to quash punishment orders dated 30.12.2003, 29.07.2009, and 25.04.2011, claiming they were unlawful as he had already served a prior punishment. The Tribunal found that the original applicant's reversion to a lower cadre was unlawful and violated the principles established in Nyadar Singh v. Union of India, 1984 (4) SCC 70. (Paras 9-14)
(B) Double Jeopardy - The court held that imposing multiple punishments for a single act constitutes double jeopardy, which is impermissible under service law principles. (Paras 12-14)
Facts of the case:
The original applicant, appointed on 25.05.1979, faced disciplinary action leading to reversion and pay reduction. His appeal was rejected, and subsequent orders were challenged after his death.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal quashed the impugned orders, stating the applicant had already served his punishment and was entitled to consequential benefits.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of multiple punishments and the application of the Nyadar Singh case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that once a punishment has been served, further punitive actions are not permissible, reaffirming the principle against double jeopardy.
Result: OA allowed; impugned orders set aside.
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 13.01
