(1.) Petitioner who at the relevant time was an employee of respondent - 1 - Cantonment Board, Belgaum, has in this petition challenged the legality and correctness of the order made by the respondent-Board which is at Annexure Z-1 to the Petition.
(2.) It would be useful at this stage to set out the operative portion of the order : "In the result, I modify the penalty levied upon the appellant by the Board, of dismissal from service to reduction to the lower post of Draftsman and direct his reinstatement in service with immediate effect. I further order that the period between his dismissal and reinstatement be treated as extraordinary leave without pay and allowances and no allowance be paid to him for the period for which he had been under suspension beyond the subsistence allowance already received by him. I also set aside the decision of the Cantonment Board forfeiting its contribution of Rs. 2306.85 towards his provident fund with interest accrued thereon. Sd/-A. M. Vohra Pune Lieutenant General, 24th May, 1979 General Officer Commanding-in-Chief." From a perusal of the order extracted above, it is clear that the appellate order passed by the 2nd respondent, petitioner while he was working in the year 1970 as an Overseer in the Cantonment Board was kept under suspension on certain specific charges pending enquiry. That enquiry was completed on 9th April, 1972 and he was dismissed from service by an order dated 12th December, 1972. He challenged that order of dismissal in this Court in an earlier proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. He was successful in getting the order of dismissal dated 12th December, 1972 set aside. However, this Court reserved liberty to the 1st respondent-Cantonment Board to proceed further against the petitioner in accordance with law if it was so advised. As a result of which another order was passed on 2nd September, 1978 by which petitioner was once again dismissed. On appeal the petitioner got the benefit of Annexure-Z1. The operative portion is already extracted above which is assailed in this Writ Petition.
(3.) Mr. H. B. Datar, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged only two points. One relates to the procedure followed at the enquiry despite the objections raised by the petitioner-delinquent officer. The second point urged is that the appellate authority while allowing the appeal has committed the error of imposing the punishment, one of which is not authorised by law at all, apart from the fact that an Officer cannot be punished twice over for the same offence of which he has been found guilty.