VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 268
571
having already been punished with a penalty, not giving affect to the
findings in the sealed cover will amount to a double penalty and this
will not only violate Arts. 14 and 16 when compared with other
employees who are not at the verge of promotion when the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against them but also offend the rule against
double jeopardy contained in Art. 20(2) of Constitution. The Tribunal
struck down that portion of paragraph 3(iii) second sub-para which
says, “if penalty is imposed on the officer as a result of the disciplinary
proceedings or if he is found guilty in the court proceedings against
him, the finding in the sealed cover shall not be acted upon”, and
directed that if the proceedings end in a penalty, the person concerned
should be considered for promotion in a review Departmental Promotion
Committee as on the original date in the light of the results of the
sealed cover as also the imposition of penalty and his claim for
promotion cannot be deferred for the subsequent Departmental
Promotion Committees as provided in the instructions.
(268)
(A) Double jeopardy
(B) Fresh inquiry / De novo inquiry
Fresh inquiry cannot be instituted against a
Government servant on same charge as in the earlier
inquiry, and a higher penalty imposed.
P. Maruthamuthu vs. General Manager, Ordnance Factory,
Tiruchirapally,
1987(1) SLR CAT MAD 15
The applicant was a Machinist in the Defence Services. A
memorandum of charges dated 9-8-80 was issued against him and
after an inquiry conducted under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services
(CCA) Rules, 1955, a penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed
on him by order dated 30-7-81.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras observed that on