Double jeopardy in departmental proceedings: An employee cannot be punished twice for the same misconduct.

The respondent-workman, serving as an A.W.S. at Nadiad Division, was issued a charge-sheet on 18.07.1996 for poor performance and disobeying orders

Following a departmental inquiry, he was reverted to the post of Head Mechanic on 30.01.1997

Simultaneously, on 05.02.1997, he was discharged from service for the same misconduct

The Industrial Tribunal, Nadiad, in Reference [IT] No. 115/2000, quashed the reversion order on 01.03.2012, directing notional salary and retiral benefits as the workman had since superannuated

1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by disturbing the findings of a proved misconduct in a departmental inquiry

2. Whether an employee can be punished twice (reversion and discharge) for the same underlying misconduct

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's power of superintendence and judicial review over sub-ordinate tribunals

Fundamental principle of service jurisprudence that a workman cannot be subjected to double jeopardy—punished twice—for the same set of misconduct or charges

Principle that once an employee attains the age of superannuation during litigation, certain challenges to service penalties may become academic

The High Court observed that the petitioner-Corporation had subjected the workman to double punishment: first by reverting him on 30.01.1997 and subsequently by discharging him on 05.02.1997 for the exact same misconduct

The court noted that a previous challenge by the Corporation (SCA No. 11011/2002) against the rejection of the discharge approval had already been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench, which directed the payment of retiral benefits

Since the workman had already reached the age of superannuation, the court found that the challenge against the reversion order was largely academic

The court held that the Tribunal’s interference was justified as the disciplinary action was procedurally or substantively flawed due to the duplicate punishment for a single cause

The High Court dismissed the Special Civil Application and upheld the Industrial Tribunal’s award dated 01.03.2012. The petitioner-Corporation was directed to comply with the Tribunal's order to pay the difference of wages and retiral benefits within four weeks