### Issuance of a Warning Does Not Constitute Penalty under Rule 10; Second Charge-Sheet Not Barred by Double Jeopardy

The petitioner, a police constable, issued a character certificate in favour of one Daddu @ Raghunandan, against whom offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 294 and 508 IPC were registered at Crime No. 73/2007

Pursuant to a complaint, a show cause notice dated 03.12.2012 (Anx. P/2) was issued to the petitioner asking why penal action should not be initiated for issuing the said certificate despite knowledge of the FIR registered at his own police station, Kusumi

The petitioner admitted mistake, explaining that the offence stood in the name of "Raghunandan Yadav" whereas the certificate was sought by "Daddu @ Raghunandan," and he could not ascertain that Daddu was Raghunandan's nickname

The Superintendent of Police, Sidhi, closed the show cause notice vide order dated 13.03.2013 (Anx. P/4) with a warning that such negligence not be repeated

Subsequently, a charge-sheet dated 04.08.2015 (Anx. P/5) was issued containing further particulars: a second case against the said person (private complaint No. 16/2008), his securing appointment as Teacher Class-III on the basis of the certificate, affixing of the Town Inspector's seal by a Constable, omission of the certificate from the police station register, and registration of Crime No. 4/2014 under Sections 420, 471 IPC, in which the petitioner was made a co-accused under Sections 467, 468 and 477-A IPC

The petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 27.10.2018 in ST No. 162/2014 and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 477-A and 468 read with 120 IPC, with fines

The petitioner retired in 2020

He filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 seeking certiorari to quash the departmental enquiry on the ground that it rested on the same allegations for which he had already been dealt with

The Court primarily applied Rule 10 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which enumerates the permissible penalties, and held that a "warning" is not a penalty thereunder

It relied upon Prakash Chandra Prasad v. State of M.P. and others, 2010(1) MPLJ, which held that warning is not a penalty specified in Rule 10 and therefore does not require the detailed enquiry procedure under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966

The Court applied the principle of double jeopardy as the testing doctrine, holding it attracted only where the charges and allegations in both proceedings are identical and the first proceeding culminated in punishment or exoneration

It additionally adverted to Rule 19 of the Rules of 1966, which permits disciplinary action on the basis of conduct that has led to conviction on a criminal charge

Comparing the two instruments, the Court found that the charges in the charge-sheet dated 04.08.2015 were "distinct" from and "elaborate" relative to the show cause notice dated 03.12.2012, since the charge-sheet incorporated a subsequent factual matrix — the second criminal case (private complaint No. 16/2008), the beneficiary's appointment as Teacher Class-III, the misuse of the Town Inspector's seal, the omission from the character certificate register, and the criminal prosecution culminating in conviction

The allegation in the show cause notice and the charge-sheet thus "cannot be equated with each other"

Independently, the Court held that the earlier proceedings were closed only with a warning, which, per Rule 10 and Prakash Chandra Prasad, constitutes no punishment; consequently, the petitioner was "neither exonerated nor punished" in the first instance, depriving the double jeopardy plea of its foundation

The State's submission that there was no inordinate delay was also noted, the charge-sheet of 04.08.2015 pertaining to an incident of 01.02.2011

The Court further observed that the petitioner's conviction could sustain departmental action under Rule 19, but declined comment as that question was not before it

Finding no ground to quash the charge-sheet dated 04.08.2015 (Anx. P/5), the Court dismissed the writ petition as sans merit

No observations were made regarding action under Rule 19 pursuant to the petitioner's criminal conviction, the matter not being before the Court