RAMAN KUMAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SABHAJEET Yadav, J. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20. 11. 2006 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration) Trade Tax, Lucknow contained in Annexure-1 of the writ petition, whereby while working as Senior clerk in the office of Assistant Commissioner (Administration) Trade Tax, Etah the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry against him.

(2.) THE aforesaid order of suspension was initially challenged on various grounds including that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vague and it is based on non application of mind but by filing supplementary affidavit in the writ petition the petitioner has stated that in respect of the same charges the petitioner was given adverse entry by Assistant Commissioner (Administration) Trade Tax, Etah, whereby his integrity was also held doubtful for the period from 12. 8. 2005 to 31. 3. 2006. A copy of the aforesaid adverse entry communicated to the petitioner enclosed as Annexure SA-1 to supplementary affidavit. On communication of the said adverse entry the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Joint Commissioner, Executive Trade Tax, Aligarh Region, Aligarh on 18. 11. 2006 and same is still pending before the competent authority. Meanwhile the order of suspension of the petitioner has been passed by respondent no. 3 on the same cause of action grounded on same facts.

(3.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in nutshell is that once the petitioner has been given an adverse entry in his annual confidential report for the year 2005-06 on the basis of appraisal of works and conduct almost on the same charge as contained in the impugned order of suspension, it is not permissible under law to proceed with disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner on the same charges grounded on same facts or same cause of action, as it would amount to double punishment or double jeopardy on the same cause of action grounded on almost on same set of facts. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgement of Calcutta High Court rendered between Purnendu Narayan Chakraborty and the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court decided on 15th June, 1989 and another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Lt. Governor, Delhi and others Vs. H. C. Narinder Singh (2004) 13 SCC 342.