R N MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the charge sheet (Annexure P1) on the ground that the subsequent charge sheet amounts to double jeopardy, because earlier also, for the same allegations a Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and he was exonerated of the charges.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on certain allegations. A Departmental Enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Pargana Mehagaon, District Bhind submitted its enquiry report dated 06/02/2014 (Annexure P3) giving a finding that the recruitment proceedings were conducted by a Committee, in which the petitioner was one of the Members apart from the In-charge Officer, Land Records and Deputy Collector.The entire recruitment proceedings were conducted by the Committee and, therefore, only one Member of the said Committee cannot be held liable. The Commissioner, Land Record and Settlement by its order dated 24/09/2014 accepted the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and exonerated the petitioner from all the charges which were levelled against him. Thereafter, the second charge sheet was issued on the said allegations.

(3.) The respondents have filed their return and they have accepted that by order dated 24/09/2014 the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges which were levelled against him in the first enquiry. However, one complaint was also made to the Lokayukt which is pending and the notices were issued and the explanations were also called and in pursuance of direction of the Lokayukt, the respondents have issued the second charge sheet. It is mentioned in the return that since the Lokayukt is a necessary party and it has not been impleaded as a respondent, therefore, the present petition suffers from mis-joinder of necessary party.