KULTAR SINGH KULTAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTUAL matrix is not in dispute in this writ petition. Petitioner joined as Sub Divisional Engineer on 5.9.1972 and was promoted as Executive Engineer in 1986. The petitioner alongwith his subordinates was charge sheeted for embezzlement. Enquiry Officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charges attributed. Punishing Authority did not agree with the enquiry report and proposed dismissal from service of the petitioner. Approval of the Punjab Public Service Commission for the proposed punishment was sought. In the meanwhile parallel proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuing a fresh charge sheet, including the earlier charges. Enquiry Officer found him not guilty of charges attributed vide his report dated 30.9.1992. The said report was accepted by the State. Petitioner challenged the issuance of show cause notices dated 31.5.1991 and 26.7.1991 by way of a Civil Suit. The Subordinate Court passed a decree in favour of the petitioner quashing the charge sheet and show cause notices issued to him. Petitioner was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 30.6.1995 annexure P -16.

(2.) THE respondents made a feeble attempt to support the order of dismissal, inter -alia, contending, since the Punjab Public Service Commission granted approval for dismissal of the petitioner, therefore, he was dismissed from service. The sum and substance of the arguments put forth is that though the Government did not favour the impugned dismissal of the petitioner yet since the Public Service Commission granted the approval of his dismissal, consequently as a natural corollary thereof, the impugned order of removal from service of the petitioner was passed.

(3.) PETITIONER cannot be tried twice over on the same charges. Once the petitioner was found not guilty of the attributed charges by the Enquiry Officer, whose report was accepted by the Punishing Authority, he cannot be punished for the same charges in an enquiry though held prior in time than the one, when he was found not guilty of these very charges. It is the final decision which brings down the curtain on the charges attributed. State cannot be permitted to keep open its options on an enquiry held earlier on the charges and proceed with another enquiry on the same charges along with some new charges. Charges having been found not proved, the State cannot be permitted to pass two contradictory orders one holding the petitioner guilty and the other not guilty. The respondents cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate with respect to the same charges in the same breath. It is well established that a person cannot be tried twice on the same charges.