Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4571
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, JM, Sanjiv Kumar, AM
Remigious Syiem – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 043/00243/2022
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965: R.16, R.24, R.27(3)
Constitution of India: Art.14, Art.16, Art.21
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Postal Assistant, was issued a charge sheet in 2021 for alleged negligence leading to a fraud. The penalty imposed was set aside by the Appellate Authority on the ground of being under a wrong rule, with liberty to take further action. The disciplinary authority dropped the charge sheet but issued a fresh charge sheet on the same cause of action and identical charges in 2022, and imposed a similar penalty without holding an inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The penalty order dated 26/27.07.2022, the fresh charge sheet, and the order of the Appellate Authority to the extent of the expression 'without prejudice to further action' were quashed and set aside.
Issues: The main issues were whether a fresh disciplinary proceeding on the same cause of action and identical charges after the initial penalty was set aside is permissible, and whether the imposition of a penalty without an inquiry violates principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that imposing a second penalty based on the same cause of action amounts to double jeopardy (Nemo debet bis vexari pro uno delicto). Further, when charges are factual and denied, an inquiry is a mandatory requirement of natural justice before imposing any penalty. Result : O.A. partly allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri M. Chanda, Smt. U. Dutta
For the Respondents: Shri P. Saikia, Addl. CGSC
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reliefs sought by the applicant. (Para 1) |
| 2. background of disciplinary proceedings. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. respondents' justification for fresh charge sheet. (Para 4) |
| 4. arguments on double jeopardy and delay. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. hearing and pleadings reviewed. (Para 7) |
| 6. details of charge sheets and penalties. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 7. court's findings on same cause and double jeopardy. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 8. final order and relief granted. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER
PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):
1.This O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
“8.1 Impugned order dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure-A1), so far the expression 'without prejudice to further action' be set aside and quashed.
8.2 Impugned order dated 27.01.2022 (Annexure-A2), so far the expression that "without prejudice to further action" and that "A fresh charge sheet will be issued in due course" be set aside and quashed.
8.3 Impugned chargesheet dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure-A3) be set aside and quashed.
8.4 Impugned penalty order dated 26/27.07.2022 (Annexure-A4) be set aside and quashed.
8.5 The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the recovery made from the salary of the applicant in terms of the penalty order dated 04.10.2021 (Annexure-A6) and 26/27.07.2022 (Annexure-A4).
8.6 Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.
2. The applicant while working as Postal Assistant Sub Accounts Branch Shillong GPO, a charge sheet dated 06.05.2021 was issued against him proposing to hold an inquiry under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in respect of a fraud committed by one Shri Chandra Bhal Prasad, then SPM, Neigrihms SO prior to 6 years alleging failure to properly scrutinize the SO daily account and retention of excess cash with other irregularities. Disciplinary proceedings was concluded and the said charge sheet culminated into a penalty of (1) Stoppage of increment for 1 year without cumulative effect and (2) Recovery of Rs. 15000/- per month for 2 years w.e.f. Oct. 2021 by order dated 04.10.2021. Applicant submitted appeal dated 25.10.2021 highlighting various procedural irregularities and illegalities viz. non initiation/institution of charge sheet dated 03.05.2021, delay in issuing charge sheet, non holding of departmental inquiry inspite of the request of the applicant, non availability of evidence and perversity, non consideration of the written statement dated 10.06.2021 by the DA, violation of Rule 11(iii) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 stipulating for recovery from the government servant who has caused pecuniary loss, etc. On consideration of the said appeal the Appellate Authority by order dated 23.12.2021 has set aside the penalty order dated 04.10.2021 without prejudice to further action and the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 27.01.2022 has dropped the charge sheet dated 03.05.2021 also without prejudice to further action.
3. However the Disciplinary Authority has again issued fresh second chargesheet dated 06.05.2022 on the same cause of action and same set of charges as earlier. It is stated that such action of the respondents is dehors the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and also the settled position of law as laid down in Lt. Governor, Delhi and others v. HC Narinder Singh reported in [(2004) 13 SCC 342], Canara Bank and others v. Swapan Kumar Pani and another reported in [(2006) 3 SCC 251], Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand reported in [(2012) 3 SCC 580], Bidyut Buragohain v. State of Assam reported in [2005 (3) GLT 457], etc. that there is no scope for issuing a fresh charge sheet on the same cause of action and on the same and identical set of charges. The issuance of second charge sheet and the penalty order dated 26/27.07.2022 based on the said second charge sheet are arbitrary and illegal amounting to violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as such liable to be set aside and quashed with direction for refund of the amo
