Issuance of second charge sheet containing identical allegations for the same cause of action is legally unsustainable.

The Applicant, a Laboratory Superintendent with the N.F. Railway, was issued a charge sheet on 30.04.2019 for allegedly using abusive language against the Principal Chief Medical Director in a CPGRAM grievance

The Applicant submitted his reply on 06.05.2019

On the same day (06.05.2019), the Respondents issued a second charge sheet containing identical allegations

The Respondents contended that the second charge sheet was necessitated because the registration number of the grievance was incorrectly cited in the first charge sheet

During the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondents issued communications dated 14.10.2019 and 09.11.2019, directing the Applicant to appear before an enquiry officer

The Applicant challenged the second charge sheet and the subsequent enquiry notices before the Tribunal

1. Whether the Respondents have the legal propriety to issue a second charge sheet on identical charges while a prior charge sheet for the same cause of action is still pending

2. Whether the communications dated 14.10.2019 and 09.11.2019, issued pursuant to the second charge sheet, are legally sustainable

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The decision is grounded in the principles of procedural propriety and administrative law, which dictate that an authority cannot initiate multiple parallel disciplinary proceedings (double jeopardy in a procedural sense) for the same cause of action when the original proceedings remain valid and pending

The Tribunal conducted a comparative analysis of the charge sheets dated 30.04.2019 and 06.05.2019 and observed that the articles of charge and the underlying allegations were identical

The court noted that the Respondents did not dispute the identity of the charges

The Tribunal reasoned that since the first charge sheet was already active and being contested, there was no justification or propriety in issuing a second, identical charge sheet for the same cause of action

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the second charge sheet was issued without proper jurisdiction/propriety. It followed that any subsequent administrative actions or notices, specifically the letters dated 14.10.2019 and 09.11.2019 calling for an enquiry based on the flawed second charge sheet, were inherently invalid

The Tribunal held that the Respondents are at liberty to proceed with the first charge sheet dated 30.04.2019, while expressly declining to comment on the validity or merits of said first charge sheet

No order was made as to costs