VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION -
296
617
earlier. The order of the Appellate Authority is violative of Art. 14 of
the Constitution.
(296)
(A) Departmental action and conviction
(B) Departmental action — afresh, on conviction
(C) Double jeopardy
Where penalty of stoppage of increments is imposed
after conducting departmental inquiry, dismissal on
the basis of conduct which led to his conviction by
criminal court later, on same charge, is illegal, and
is against the principle of double jeopardy.
Kamruddin Pathan vs. Rajasthan Stae R.T.C.,
1988(2) SLR RAJ 200
The appellant was a Conductor in Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation. He was charge-sheeted on the allegation
that he carried passengers who had no tickets despite charging from
them. A departmental inquiry was held and he was removed from
service. His appeal was partly allowed by the departmental authority
and the penalty was reduced to stoppage of two grade increments.
A criminal case was also instituted against him and he was convicted
and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60. The competent authority
thereupon dismissed him from service as, in his opinion, the conduct
of the appellant which led to his conviction disentitled him to remain
in service.
The Rajasthan High Court observed that a criminal case
when instituted will terminate in acquittal or conviction of an accused
who is charged with the offence alleged against him and in the instant
case, the court held him guilty and convicted and sentenced him. It
is well settled that holding of a departmental inquiry subsequent to
even a trial by a criminal court on the same facts is not barred. There
is also no bar if both the proceedings are simultaneously drawn but