Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5820

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Member (J), B. Anand, Member (A)
Vijender Singh – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCTD – Respondent
O.A. No. 1250/2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sachin Chauhan
For the Respondents: Jalaj Agarwal

A second departmental inquiry on the same set of facts is impermissible in the absence of a specific rule, especially after the delinquent has already been departmentally punished for the same incident, to protect public servants from harassment and maintain the finality of disciplinary proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Disciplinary Inquiry - Second inquiry on same set of facts - Permissibility - Principles enunciated - Petitioner subjected to disciplinary proceedings and penalty of censure were inflicted - Respondents initiated fresh departmental inquiry for same incident - Absence of specific rule permitting second inquiry on same facts - HELD: In the absence of a specific rule, once a disciplinary case is decided on merits, second inquiry on same facts cannot be held - Double jeopardy rule does not bar but absence of power under a rule inhibits second inquiry after delinquent had once been absolved - Impugned orders set aside. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 11)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, while working as an ASI, was issued a show cause notice regarding his conduct and subsequently punished with 'censure'. Following adverse observations by a trial court regarding the same incident, the respondents initiated a fresh departmental inquiry against the applicant. The applicant challenged this fresh inquiry on the ground of double jeopardy and procedural impropriety.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal examined whether a fresh inquiry is permissible after the imposition of a penalty in a previous inquiry. Relying on settled judicial principles, the court held that once a disciplinary case has reached a finality regarding specific factual allegations, a second inquiry into the same set of facts is legally impermissible in the absence of a specific rule or provision for review/revision.

Issues: Whether the respondents could initiate a fresh departmental inquiry against the applicant for the same incident/allegations for which he had already been held guilty and punished with 'censure'.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a specific enabling rule, a disciplinary authority lacks the power to initiate a second inquiry on the same facts once the first disciplinary case has been decided on merits, as it subjects the public servant to unnecessary harassment.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving show cause notices and prior disciplinary action. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments concerning the prohibition of successive disciplinary inquiries on identical facts. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. judicial precedents establishing that second inquiry is barred in absence of specific enabling rules. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. final order granting relief to the applicant due to the illegality of the second inquiry. (Para 13 , 14)

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

1. In the present OA, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals' Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):

“8.1 To quash and setaside the order dated 09.04.2010 whereby a Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the applicant alongwith other co-delinquent.

8.2 To quash and setaside the order dated 25.04.11.

8.3 To quash and setaside the order dated 21.11.2011 whereby the joint department enquiry initiated vide an order dated 09.04.2010 against the applicant and co-delinquent ground. is being withdrawn on administrative

8.4 To quash and setaside the order dated 03.03.2012 whereby the Department Enquiry was initiated only in respect of applicant.

8.5 To quash and setaside the order dated 09.07.2013 whereby the major punishment i.e. forfeiture of five (05) years approved service permanently is imposed upon the applicant with immediate effect entailing proportionate reduction in his pay and order dated 01.09.2014 whereby the appeal of the applicant is rejected by the Appellate Authority and to further direct the respondent that forfeited years of service be restored as was never forfeited with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.

8.6 To quash and setaside the finding of the Enquiry Officer.

8.7 To quash and setaside the Order dated 25.10.2013 whereby the name of applicant has been kept in Secret List of doubtful integrity from the date of punishment and to further direct the respondent that the name of the applicant be removed from the list of Secret List from the date of its inception.

Or/and

Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.”

2. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filling counter reply. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating his claim and the grounds in support thereof. Subsequently, with the permission of the Court, the learned counsels for the parties have also filed written synopsis. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have perused the pleadings on record.

3. Undisputed facts are that a Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2006 (Annexure A-16) was issued to the applicant while he was working as an ASI and posted with P.S. Mandawali as to why his conduct, referred to in the said Show Cause Notice, should not be censured. The applicant was accorded 15 days’ time to submit his reply/explanation. Thereafter, the applicant submitted his response and the respondents passed an order dated 30.09.2006 (Annexure A-17) and the proposed penalty of censure was inflicted upon the applicant vide such order. For the incident referred to in the Show Cause notice dated 22.03.2006, FIR No. 856/2002 under Sections 364A/306/201/34 was registered with Police Station Shakarpur and the learned Court, vide order/judgment dated 20.12.2008 (Annexure A-18), adversely commented upon the conduct of the applicant and the concerned SHO/Inspector of the applicant at the relevant time.

4. Pursuant to the order/judgment dated 20.12.2008 of the learned Trial Court, FIR No. 27 dated 19.01.2009 under Section 201/218/34 of the IPC was registered with Police Station Mandawali against the applicant. The said FIR is stated to be pending before the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the latest instructions received by him a closure report was filed in the said case. However, Mr. Aggarwal, learned co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5820

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALR.N. Singh, Member (J), B. Anand, Member (A)Vijender Singh – AppellantVersusGovt. of NCTD – RespondentO.A. No. 1250/2015

Cases Referred (3)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Member (J), B. Anand, Member (A)
Vijender Singh – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCTD – Respondent
O.A. No. 1250/2015