AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.—The State is the petitioner and the challenge is to the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated
16.11.2001 passed in O.A.No. 2865 of 2000. While the first respondent was working as an Executive Officer Maduravayal Town Panchayat in
Chengelpet district, he was issued with the charge memo dated 20.6.1997. In annexure 1 to the said charge memo in charge No. 8, it was alleged
that he purchased dustbins for the use of public health purposes to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/- from Tvl. Dhalavaipatti Multipurpose Cottage and
Village Industries Cooperative Society for which the administrative sanction of the District Collector was not obtained which amounts to violation
of the Government orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 729 RD & LA department dated 6.9.1994 and caused loss to the funds of Maduravoyal Town
Panchayat. The said charge sheet came to be issued under the signature of the District Collector of Thiruvallur.
Based on the said charge memo, after the submission of the explanation by the first respondent, further enquiry was held and ultimately the
Director of Town Panchayats passed an order dated 2.3.1999 exonerating the first respondent of all the charges. The operative part of the order
dated 2.3.1999 is to the following effect:
Thereafter, on 3.11.1999 another charge memo again by invoking the same Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1955 was issued to him. In the annexure to the said charge memo, the very same charge No. 8 contained in the charge sheet dated
20.6.1997 was alleged against the first respondent. The only difference as between the charge No. 8 in the charge sheet dated 20.6.1997 and the
present charge memo dated 2.3.1999 is that in the present case, the very same charge No. 8 was split into seven different charges. A reading of
the first charge as found in the Annexure 1 to the charge memo dated 3.11.1999 makes it clear that the first respondent without the prior
permission of the higher authorities indulged in the purchase of 150 numbers of dust bins by making an advance payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- to
Thalaivaipatti Panchayat Multipurpose Cottage and Village Industries Cooperative Society for personal gains, which was in violation of the Rules
and Regulations, which caused heavy loss to the Panchayat. The other charges 2 to 7 were interlinked with the very first charge described in
Annexure 1.
Therefore, a combined reading of charge No. 8 in the charge sheet dated 20.6.1997 and the charges now framed in the charge sheet dated
3.11.1999 is quite explicit that in both the charge sheets the allegation was only with reference to the misconduct of the purchase of 150 dustbins
by the first respondent without prior permission of the higher authorities which was in violation of the Rules and Regulations and the said purchase
resulted in monetary loss to the Panchayat. In the seventh charge framed in Annexure 1, it was stated that such conduct indulged in by the first
respondent was in violation of Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. Rule 20(1) states that every member of
the service, should at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and dO nothing unbecoming of a member of the service.
The first respondent approached the State Administrative Tribunal by filing, OA. No. 2865 of 2005 challenging the present charge sheet dated
3.11.1999. The Tribunal accepting the contention of the first respondent held that the petitioner was not entitled to proceed with the subsequent
charge sheet dated 3.11.1999 in the light of the exoneration of the said charge in the first charge sheet dated 20.6.1997 as contained in Charge
No. 8 of that charge sheet. Aggrieved against the same, the State has come forward with this writ petition.
Mr. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner contended that though the incident with reference to which
the charge sheet dated 20.6.1997 and 3.11.1999 came to be issued was common, inasmuch as in the present occasion, charge No. 7 has
specifically alleged violation of Rule 203(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973, the Tribunal was not right in setting
aside the charge memo. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, since there was no specific charge of violation of Rule 20(1) of the
above said Rules in the earlier charge sheet dated 20.6.1997, the petitioner was entitled to proceed against the first respondent for holding an
enquiry into the present charges levelled against the first respondent. We are not able to accept the contention of the learned special Government
Pleader.
It is well settled that the delinquent cannot be proceeded against twice for one and the same charges. The theory of Double Jeopardy squarely
applies to the facts of this case. In this context, reliance can be placed upon the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court reported in 1991
(1) LLN 1236 (Kancheepuram Cooperative House Mortgage Society ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Madras and Ors.),
wherein in paragraph 15, the learned Judge has stated as under:
As rightly pointed out by Sri NGR Prasad, the learned Counsel for the employees, if the argument of the petitioner Management is going to be
accepted that the second enquiry is in addition to the charges of the first charge memo, it is always open to any employer not to accept any enquiry
report and order re-energy by just adding one or more charges thereto, till he gets the enquiry report to his liking. In my view, such an act should
not be allowed and it is not reasonable. As such I am of the view that the appellate authority has rightly gone into the question about the second
enquiry initiated in this case and has held that once the respondents employees have been exonerated in the first enquiry, no question of holding a
second enquiry will arise and it is not reasonable and no case on merits also will arise.
(Emphasis added)
The said decision of the learned single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 1992 1 LLN 599
(Kancheepuram Cooperative House Mortgage Society ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Madras and Ors.). The Division Bench
while affirming the order of the learned Single Judge has held as under:
The learned Single Judge rightly found that the sum and substance of both the charge memos was the same and that it was not open to the Board
to start an enquiry afresh over the report of the enquiry officer holding the charge memo framed in the first instance is not at all proved.
Reliance by the learned Counsel on certain decisions to show that a second enquiry could be permitted is misplaced as all those judgments deal
with orders made by the Courts in exercise of the writ jurisdiction where liberty had been reserved, while quashing the orders of the enquiry
officers, to hold fresh enquiry. The case is totally distinguishable as there was no such direction or liberty given to the Board. The, first respondent,
under the circumstances, rightly went into the question about the propriety of the second enquiry and rightly found that the appellant was not
entitled to hold the second enquiry since the respondents-employees had been exonerated in the first enquiry. The learned single Judge for cogent
reasons upheld those findings, and in the facts and circumstances of the case as indicated above, we see no reason to take a different view. The
writ appeal fails and is dismissed.
(Emphasis added)
In the case on hand, as stated earlier, the occurrence was one and the same, namely the purchase of 150 numbers of dustbins for total value of
Rs. 1,20,000/-that too from a Cooperative Society. For the very same occurrence, the first respondent was proceeded against in the charge sheet
dated 20.6.1997. The final order came to be passed on 2.3.1999. The relevant part of it has been extracted in the earlier part of our order. In that
order, the disciplinary authority, namely, the Director of Town Panchayats has stated in unambiguous terms that he had examined the charges, the
explanation, the findings of the enquiry officer independently as well as its minute details. He has also stated that the explanation submitted by the
first respondent was also convincing, apart from the fact that whatever defects levelled against the first respondent were set right after the auditor''s
report. Thus, the explanation of the first respondent to the charge memo on the earlier occasion came to be accepted after due deliberations and
after following a detailed procedure of an enquiry and after submission of a report by the concerned enquiry officer. We are of the considered
opinion that violation of Rule 20(1) of the 1973 Conduct Rules would have been automatically attracted even on the earlier occasion, had the
charge No. 8 in the charge sheet dated 20.6.1997 been pursued. Therefore, the mere non-mention of the said Rule in that charge sheet will not
make any difference nor would that mean that on that score the closed matter can be reopened again. Therefore, even if the seventh charge of
violation of Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 was not specifically mentioned on the earlier occasion, it
cannot be held that for the failure to include the said charge on the earlier occasion, the petitioner would be free to reopen the very same issue once
over, again after the exoneration of the first respondent of the said charge by issuing a fresh charge sheet.
As held in the decision referred to above, if such an action of the disciplinary authority is allowed to take place, there will be no end to any of the
disciplinary proceedings wherein the concerned delinquent is exonerated of the charges, who can always be proceeded against till the disciplinary
authority gets a favourable report at some point or other. Such an indefinite state of affairs in the matter of disciplinary proceedings cannot be
permitted to take place. Therefore, if the disciplinary authority wanted to proceed against the delinquent employee based on an occurrence which
gives scope for initiation of the disciplinary proceeding, it is for the disciplinary authority to frame all the charges once at the same time and stand or
fall by such action initiated against the delinquent. We therefore hold that the disciplinary authority cannot be permitted to repeat such proceedings
by issuing a fresh charge memo against the delinquent at different stages in respect of the very same allegation on the specious ground that the
manner in which the charges were worded or framed on the earlier occasion was not to his liking or that irrespective of the full narration of the
occurrence the reference to any Rule was omitted to be mentioned in the earlier charge sheet. The contention of the petitioner is that irrespective of
the exoneration of the delinquent on the earlier occasion, the disciplinary authority should be permitted to proceed against the delinquent on the
very same incident on a subsequent occasion by reframing the charges. Such a stand made on behalf of the petitioner can never be permitted in
service jurisprudence either it be in the case of a master and servant relationship or in respect of any Government servants. Looked at from any
angle, we are not able to countenance the stand of the petitioner that in spite of the earlier order-dated 2.3.1999, exonerating the first respondent
of the charge relating to purchase of 150 dust bins in the Maduravoyal Panchayat, the petitioner should be permitted to proceed against the first
respondent by way of issuance of a fresh charge memo as made in the present charge sheet dated 3.11.1999. The Tribunal was therefore perfectly
justified in having set aside the said charge sheet. There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.