J S KAPUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk, Ty (IDC Q/Pt) in the Western Command of the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. On 17th April, 1970 respondent No. 4, Garrison Engineer, Nasirabad served a charge-sheet on the petitioner and proposed an enquiry against him on certain charges. The Enquiry Officer gave a. finding against the petitioner on the said charges which was confirmed by respondent No. 2, Chief Engineer, Poona and Rajasthan Zone vide letter dated 16th December, 1970. The petitioner, by the said letter, was found not fit to be retained in the service and it was proposed to impose a penalty of removal from service against him. On 14th May, 1971 the petitioner filed a representation before respondent No. 2, against the finding of the Enquiry Officer. In this representation apart from preliminary objection regarding competence of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner raised several other objections regarding the validity of the enquiry. The petitioner also submitted in the representation that the enquiry was being held malafide and that the rules of natural justice were not complied with. On 17th January, 1972 respondent No. 4 communicated to the petitioner that his representation had been accepted and the previous charge-sheet stood cancelled and they proposed to initiate a de novo enquiry. A further representation was made by the petitioner that a de novo enquiry could not be initiated on the ame charges. However, the said representation was rejected by the respondent and another officer was appointed to enquire into the charges.

(2.) It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that a second enquiry on the same charges is not permissible in law. To support his contention the counsel relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. J.N. Roy Biswas, AIR 1975 SC 2277, K.R. Deb v. Collector. Central Excise, Shillong, AIR 1971 SC 1447, and C.D. Prabhu v. D.C. South Kanara, 1969 SLR 363 (Mysore High Court); and R.N. Atri v. Union of India, 1979 (1) SLR 527 (Delhi High Court).

(3.) It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that since the first enquiry was procedurally defective, the second enquiry on the same charges was valid. If only the first enquiry was proper, the second enquiry could not have been started. Further, the petitioner could not have any grievance since he was found guilty in the first enquiry.