it2025_00333 — Enhancing the penalty, which had been already completed, in this case proposed enhancing the penalty to dismissal from service, after elapse of 4 years tantamount a double punishment which is not permissible under the law

Enhancing the penalty, which had been already completed, in this case proposed enhancing the penalty to dismissal from service, after elapse of 4 years tantamount a double punishment which is not permissible under the law — This chunk describes a case (O.A. No. 040/00009 of 2015) where an accountant was transferred, suspended, and charged for misconduct under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. After completing his punishment in... — Facts: The Applicant, an Accountant in Composite Regional Centre (CRC) for person with disabilities under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Disability Affairs, Government of India, was transferred as Director to Swami Vivekananda National Institute of Rehabilitation and Training and Research, in the State of Orissa based on an enquiry of CBI (ACB). Immediately, he was put under suspension and a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued by Joint Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, R-2 herein. Immediately, another Memorandum, dated 19/19-4-2007 was issued by R-2 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. After the procedure is completed, the Applicant was granted the major penalty of recovery of ₹ 4,16,334 and reduction to a lower stage at ₹ 5,500 in the time scale of pay of ₹ 5,500-175-9,000 for a period of three years without cumulative effect. However, after an elapse of 4 years after the completion of penalty imposed as above, Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment proposed enhancing the penalty to removal from service by Memorandum, dated 8-12-2014 which is challenged in this OA. An Appellate Authority can enhance the penalty within 6 months of the date of the order proposed by scrutinizing the disciplinary proceedings records at any time on his own motion or otherwise and revise any order made under these rules. CVC under OM, dated 28-1-2010 advised penalty imposed on Applicant is not commensurate to the gravity of misconduct involved and penalty of dismissal should be explored. On 21-4-2010, the punishment in this case was imposed. The Applicant completed his serving of punishment on 21-4-2013. Thus it is apparent that the Revisionary Authority decision to propose enhancement of penalty to dismissal from service by Order, dated 8-12-2014 is without time-limit as prescribed under Rule 29 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Tribunal further noted that "the matter relates to 2004-2005 and then 2005-2006. One after another memorandum of charges was issued. Consequently enquiry was held. After long years, the disciplinary authority completed the disciplinary proceedings which took four years for imposition of penalty i.e. on 21-4-2010. The Revisionary Authority thereafter on December, 2014 again took a decision on the basis of CVC report, dated 28-1-2010 for enhancement of penalty of dismissal from service. In P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., T.N. Housing Board [ 2005 (6) SCC 636 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "Allowing Respondents to proceed further with departmental proceeding at a distant point of time will be very prejudicial to the Applicant. Hence charge-memo was quashed". Hon'ble Apex Court also noted that the "litigants suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and suffering of the appellant due to protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than punishment". In the present case, the Tribunal noted that the major penalty was imposed on 21-4-2010. After long years, again the Revisionary Authority proposed to enhance the penalty upon the Applicant which in the view of the Tribunal tantamount to double punishment which is not permissible under law. The dictum "NEMO DEBET BIS VEXARI PRO EADEMCAUSA" meaning thereby no man ought to be twice vexed for the same cause.