it2025_00920 — Applicant herein, an Accounts Officer working in Itanagar of Arunachal Pradesh was charge-sheeted and punished as per rules vide Penalty Order, dated 21-4-2017. On his appeal, Appellate Authority ordered for de novo enquiry issuing a fresh charge-sheet, for the same charges for which fresh enquiry from preliminary hearing stage is not correct. Enquiry should be made from the point wherefrom the irregularity supervened. On the fresh enquiry, the evidences may be wiped off. The law "NEMO DEBET BIS

IT Rules

Applicant herein, an Accounts Officer working in Itanagar of Arunachal Pradesh was charge-sheeted and punished as per rules vide Penalty Order, dated 21-4-2017. On his appeal, Appellate Authority ordered for de novo enquiry issuing a fresh charge-sheet, for the same charges for which fresh enquiry from preliminary hearing stage is not correct. Enquiry should be made from the point wherefrom the irregularity supervened. On the fresh enquiry, the evidences may be wiped off. The law "NEMO DEBET BIS VEXARI PRO UNO DELICTO" meaning that no one should be vexed twice for the same offence applies. This led to setting aside of Applicant's suspension Order, dated 14-11-2017 and reinstate the Applicant — This chunk pertains to the case O.A. No. 045/00015 of 2019, where an Accounts Officer was charge-sheeted and punished for violating certain rules. Despite an appeal, a fresh enquiry was ordered issui... — Facts : Applicant was initially appointed as Clerk / Typist on 5-8-1985 in the Office of AG (A&E), Assam, Meghalaya at Shillong. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Office of AG (A&E) Assam, Guwahati on his own interest. He progressed in his career and became Section Officer in the office of AG (A&E) Meghalaya, Shillong. Thereafter, he joined at Itanagar on 21-5-2009 as Assistant Accounts Officer and promoted as Accounts Officer-in-charge of Pay and Accounts Officer along with other charges. Applicant was charge-sheeted by Memo, dated 9-5-2013 and proposed to hold an enquiry against the Applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 alleging violation of Rule 20 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules with three charges. Even though the Applicant argued his case attending the enquiry promptly, he was punished by Disciplinary Authority by penalty of compulsory retirement effective from the date of issue of order vide Order, dated 21-4-2017. By the punishment order, the Applicant is entitled for pension at a rate of two-thirds on the date of his compulsory retirement under Rule 40 (1) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. On his appeal, the Appellate Authority vide impugned order, dated 21-4-2017 remitted back the matter to PAG and DA for holding de novo enquiry by withdrawing charge-sheet, dated 9-5-2013 by issuing a fresh charge-sheet as per provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Applicant states that there is no authority under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to give a further direction to hold a fresh enquiry. Further explaining the rules and orders thereon, the order of de novo enquiry is in violation of Rule 15 (2) under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Hence the de novo enquiry is against rules leading to setting aside the charge-memo, dated 30-11-2017. Applicant relied on various earlier decisions of Tribunal. In view of the above, the Applicant prays for his reinstatement by setting aside suspension Order, dated 14-11-2017. Respondents depending upon the various earlier judgments state that the case of the Applicant was treated as per law and hence the prayer of the Applicant should not be upheld. Tribunal noting the contentions of both sides stated, whether the order of authority to hold a de novo enquiry pursuant to the impugned order, dated 20-10-2017 on the same charges which are enquired into earlier and punished is in order or not. In the case of Som Nath Sharma v. Union of India and others [ O.A. No. 991-HP of 1993 decided on 25-3-1994 ] reported in 1994 (27) ATC 771 relied by Applicant, it was held that there exists a world of difference between de novo enquiry and further enquiry. Where there is an omission in further enquiry, the enquiry can be corrected by adducing further evidence. A de novo enquiry is a fresh enquiry not forming part of the earlier enquiry by which punishment had already been ordered. De novo enquiry, if the evidence at the enquiry is in favour of Charged Officer is to wipe off the same with a clear slate. That is not the legislative intent in framing the rule itself. In the case of Sujit Kr. Dubey v. Union of India [ O.A. No. 247/PB of 1990 decided on 7-2-1997 ], it was said that collecting sufficient evidence and then starting the disciplinary proceedings only should be allowed to be used against the officer. Jurisprudence does not allow second trial on the same facts in the name of de novo enquiry, once the person has been found to be not guilty due to lack of evidence. De novo enquiry is not permissible under the law is a trite law. Tribunal relies on the Apex Court judgment in the case of K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise [ 1971 (1) SLR 291 ], wherein it is said that Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides for one enquiry only. Due to some reasons, the DA may ask Enquiry Officer to record further evidence but there is no provision in the rule for completely setting aside the previous enquiry and ordering de novo enquiry.

IT Rules

Applicant herein, an Accounts Officer working in Itanagar of Arunachal Pradesh was charge-sheeted and punished as per rules vide Penalty Order, dated 21-4-2017. On his appeal, Appellate Authority ordered for de novo enquiry issuing a fresh charge-sheet, for the same charges for which fresh enquiry from preliminary hearing stage is not correct. Enquiry should be made from the point wherefrom the irregularity supervened. On the fresh enquiry, the evidences may be wiped off. The law "NEMO DEBET BIS VEXARI PRO UNO DELICTO" meaning that no one should be vexed twice for the same offence applies. This led to setting aside of Applicant's suspension Order, dated 14-11-2017 and reinstate the Applicant — This chunk pertains to the case O.A. No. 045/00015 of 2019, where an Accounts Officer was charge-sheeted and punished for violating certain rules. Despite an appeal, a fresh enquiry was ordered issui... — Facts : Applicant was initially appointed as Clerk / Typist on 5-8-1985 in the Office of AG (A&E), Assam, Meghalaya at Shillong. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Office of AG (A&E) Assam, Guwahati on his own interest. He progressed in his career and became Section Officer in the office of AG (A&E) Meghalaya, Shillong. Thereafter, he joined at Itanagar on 21-5-2009 as Assistant Accounts Officer and promoted as Accounts Officer-in-charge of Pay and Accounts Officer along with other charges. Applicant was charge-sheeted by Memo, dated 9-5-2013 and proposed to hold an enquiry against the Applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 alleging violation of Rule 20 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules with three charges. Even though the Applicant argued his case attending the enquiry promptly, he was punished by Disciplinary Authority by penalty of compulsory retirement effective from the date of issue of order vide Order, dated 21-4-2017. By the punishment order, the Applicant is entitled for pension at a rate of two-thirds on the date of his compulsory retirement under Rule 40 (1) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. On his appeal, the Appellate Authority vide impugned order, dated 21-4-2017 remitted back the matter to PAG and DA for holding de novo enquiry by withdrawing charge-sheet, dated 9-5-2013 by issuing a fresh charge-sheet as per provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Applicant states that there is no authority under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to give a further direction to hold a fresh enquiry. Further explaining the rules and orders thereon, the order of de novo enquiry is in violation of Rule 15 (2) under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Hence the de novo enquiry is against rules leading to setting aside the charge-memo, dated 30-11-2017. Applicant relied on various earlier decisions of Tribunal. In view of the above, the Applicant prays for his reinstatement by setting aside suspension Order, dated 14-11-2017. Respondents depending upon the various earlier judgments state that the case of the Applicant was treated as per law and hence the prayer of the Applicant should not be upheld. Tribunal noting the contentions of both sides stated, whether the order of authority to hold a de novo enquiry pursuant to the impugned order, dated 20-10-2017 on the same charges which are enquired into earlier and punished is in order or not. In the case of Som Nath Sharma v. Union of India and others [ O.A. No. 991-HP of 1993 decided on 25-3-1994 ] reported in 1994 (27) ATC 771 relied by Applicant, it was held that there exists a world of difference between de novo enquiry and further enquiry. Where there is an omission in further enquiry, the enquiry can be corrected by adducing further evidence. A de novo enquiry is a fresh enquiry not forming part of the earlier enquiry by which punishment had already been ordered. De novo enquiry, if the evidence at the enquiry is in favour of Charged Officer is to wipe off the same with a clear slate. That is not the legislative intent in framing the rule itself. In the case of Sujit Kr. Dubey v. Union of India [ O.A. No. 247/PB of 1990 decided on 7-2-1997 ], it was said that collecting sufficient evidence and then starting the disciplinary proceedings only should be allowed to be used against the officer. Jurisprudence does not allow second trial on the same facts in the name of de novo enquiry, once the person has been found to be not guilty due to lack of evidence. De novo enquiry is not permissible under the law is a trite law. Tribunal relies on the Apex Court judgment in the case of K.R. Deb v. Collector of Central Excise [ 1971 (1) SLR 291 ], wherein it is said that Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides for one enquiry only. Due to some reasons, the DA may ask Enquiry Officer to record further evidence but there is no provision in the rule for completely setting aside the previous enquiry and ordering de novo enquiry.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text