VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

418 DECISION - 166
be active application of the mind by the disciplinary authority after
taking into account the entire circumstances of the case in order to
decide the nature and extent of the penalty to be imposed on the
delinquent employee. This matter can be objectively examined only
if he is heard and given a chance to satisfy the disciplinary authority
about the final orders to be passed. The Supreme Court pointed out
that there may be cases where the employee was convicted for very
trivial offences like violation of the Motor Vehicles Act where no major
penalty would be justified.
(166)
Fresh inquiry / De novo inquiry
When officer is exonerated after inquiry and
reinstated, though no conclusive order was passed,
it was not open to disciplinary authority to proceed
against him afresh.
State of Assam vs. J.N. Roy Biswas,
AIR 1975 SC 2277
The respondent was Veterinary Assistant in the Animal
Husbandry and Veterinary Department. The respondent had been
placed under suspension and proceeded against in a departmental
inquiry. The Inquiry Officer held the charges proved and a notice
was served asking him to show cause why he should not be dismissed
from service. After considering his reply, orders were passed
reinstating him and directing him to rejoin duty. But no conclusive
order was passed on the report of the Inquiry Officer either exonerating
him or imposing some punishment. Later, the proceedings were
reopened and a de novo enquiry was started. The respondent moved
the High Court for a writ of prohibition which was granted.
The Supreme Court held that though the principle of double
jeopardy is not attracted in this case, in as much as no previous
punishment had been awarded to him, yet having exculpated him
after inquiry, it was not open to the disciplinary authority to proceed