UOI Vs. P SASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Disciplinary Authority by virtue of his order dated 13.02.2004 has directed a 'further' inquiry or a de novo inquiry? In case the direction is construed to be a mere direction for a further inquiry, it would be well within the its power of the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. However, if it is understood that the direction given by the Disciplinary Authority in his order dated 13.02.2004 meant a de novo inquiry, the same would, therefore, not be sustainable in law as that would amount to double jeopardy, inasmuch as, there cannot be two enquiries in respect of the very same state of affairs.

(2.) The Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order dated 21.10.2010 passed in O.A. No.1497/2009 has come to the conclusion that the direction given by the Disciplinary Authority in the said order dated 13.02.2004 was for a de novo inquiry, which is not permitted in law and, therefore, the Tribunal set aside the proceedings pursuant thereto which included the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) We may first of all refer to the order dated 13.02.2004. The said order is the bone of contention between the parties and, therefore, it would be appropriate for us to set it out in full:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_4213_ILRDLH22_2012_1.html</FRM>