VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

572 DECISION - 269
an earlier occasion, an inquiry was conducted and charges were
held as proved and an order dated 12-4-80 was passed imposing
the penalty of reduction of pay from Rs. 230 to Rs. 210 with cumulative
effect for three years. The issue of the charge-sheet a second time
is sought to be justified on the ground that the applicant was
unauthorisedly absenting himself from duty continuously and did not
pay any heed to instructions or advice and that the respondent had
no option but to charge-sheet the applicant again. The Tribunal
observed that the charges in both the memoranda of charges are
the same, in respect of unauthorised absence from duty from 10-4-
79 and non-compliance with instructions. There is nothing in the
subsequent memorandum of charges to indicate that it relates to
something not covered by the earlier charge-sheet.
The Tribunal observed that an employee against whom
disciplinary proceedings have been instituted on a particular charge,
as a result of which a punishment has also been awarded to him,
cannot subsequently be charge-sheeted for the same offence and
imposed a higher punishment.
(269)
Inquiry — abrupt closure
Abrupt closure of inquiry without holding the hearing
fixed already, vitiates proceedings.
P. Thulasingaraj vs. Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
1987(3) SLJ CAT MAD 10
The inquiry was first posted to 18-7-79 and adjourned to 9-
8-79 as the petitioner was not available to receive the intimation in
time. On 9-8-79, the official appeared before the Inquiry Officer and
raised a number of preliminary objections which were considered
and over-ruled by the Inquiry Officer. Examination of witnesses by
the Inquiry Officer commenced thereafter but the charged official left
the venue of inquiry stating that going into the charges without meeting