Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ramrao Maroti Shinde, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), was subjected to a departmental enquiry in May 2019 for allegedly forging travelling entries to acquire excess travelling allowance. On 22 July 2019, the disciplinary authority imposed a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment for six months without cumulative effect. The petitioner also had Rs.4,950 deducted from his salary in March 2019 before the enquiry, and later Rs.19,350 deducted in December 2019. Subsequently, on 8 November 2019, respondent no.3 (DIG/Chief Security Commissioner) issued a show cause notice under Rule 219.4(b) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, stating that the punishment imposed was insufficient and seeking the petitioner's explanation. The petitioner replied on 21 November 2019, contending that a fresh enquiry for the same misconduct was not permissible. On 2 December 2019, respondent no.3 passed an order directing a fresh departmental enquiry. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition. The High Court held that once a final punishment has been imposed, a second departmental enquiry for the same misconduct is barred by the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. The Court observed that Rule 219.4(b) only empowers the superior authority to call for records and enhance punishment after giving an opportunity of hearing, but does not permit a fresh enquiry. The Court quashed the order dated 2 December 2019 and the fresh charge-sheet, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Double Jeopardy - Article 20(2) of Constitution of India - Rule 219.4(b) of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 - The petitioner, an ASI in RPF, was punished with stoppage of one increment for six months without cumulative effect for forging travelling entries. Subsequently, the superior authority issued a show cause notice under Rule 219.4(b) stating insufficient punishment and proposed a fresh enquiry. The Court held that once a final punishment is imposed, a second enquiry for the same misconduct is impermissible as it violates the principle of double jeopardy. The superior authority could only enhance punishment after following due process, but not order a fresh enquiry. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Enhancement of Punishment - Rule 219.4(b) of Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 - The superior authority disagreed with the quantum of punishment and issued a show cause notice. The Court held that Rule 219.4(b) does not permit a fresh enquiry; it only allows the superior authority to call for records and enhance punishment after giving an opportunity of hearing. Since the petitioner had already suffered a final punishment, the second enquiry was quashed. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second departmental enquiry can be initiated against a delinquent employee for the same misconduct after a final punishment has already been imposed, and whether the superior authority can enhance the punishment under Rule 219.4(b) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 without initiating a fresh enquiry.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 2 December 2019 passed by respondent no.3 directing a fresh departmental enquiry and the fresh charge-sheet are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Double jeopardy
- departmental enquiry
- fresh charge-sheet
- minor punishment
- enhancement of punishment
- Railway Protection Force Rules
- 1987
- Article 20(2) of Constitution of India
- Rule 219.4(b)
- show cause notice
- insufficient punishment
- finality of disciplinary proceedings
