Issuance of fresh Rule 14 charge sheet on identical allegations following Rule 15(2) proceedings constitutes double jeopardy.

The applicant, a 1999 batch Indian Statistical Service officer, served on deputation with the Government of Odisha from 2018 to 2020 before returning to a central posting under Respondent No. 1

Following internal proceedings regarding a complaint by Respondent No. 4, an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report was submitted by Respondent No. 3

Respondent No. 2 (State of Odisha) supplied this report to the applicant on 28.06.2022 in accordance with Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, to which the applicant submitted a detailed reply on 15.07.2022

Despite the matter already reaching the Rule 15(2) stage (consideration of inquiry report), Respondent No. 1 subsequently issued a fresh major penalty charge sheet dated 21.03.2024 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, based on the same set of allegations

1. Whether the issuance of a fresh charge memorandum under Rule 14, following the completion of an inquiry and the supply of a report under Rule 15(2) on the same allegations, is legally sustainable

2. Whether the initiation of fresh proceedings on identical grounds violates principles analogous to double jeopardy under the Constitution of India

Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, specifically Rule 14 (procedure for imposing major penalties) and Rule 15(2) (action on the inquiry report)

Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, which protects against double jeopardy, holding that the state cannot revert to a preliminary stage of prosecution once a specific stage of inquiry has been concluded and acted upon

The Tribunal observed that the disciplinary process had already progressed to the stage of Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, as evidenced by the fact that the inquiry report had been served upon the applicant and his representation had been recorded

The court reasoned that Respondent No. 1’s decision to "revert" and issue a fresh charge sheet under Rule 14 for the same allegations was an impermissible procedural duplication

By initiating fresh proceedings on the same facts, the respondents violated the principle of double jeopardy

The Tribunal clarified that while the department maintains the authority to bring the existing proceedings (the ICC report and subsequent Rule 15 response) to a logical conclusion, it cannot restart the process de novo via a new Rule 14 memorandum

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned charge memorandum dated 21.03.2024

But it granted liberty to the respondents to proceed with the existing Internal Complaints Committee report and the applicant’s reply thereto to reach a final decision in accordance with the law