Issuing a fresh charge sheet on identical charges after setting aside previous proceedings constitutes impermissible double jeopardy.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant, was issued a charge sheet on 03.05.2021 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging negligence in scrutinizing accounts which led to a financial fraud.

The proceedings resulted in a penalty of stoppage of increment and recovery of ₹15,000 per month.

Following an appeal by the applicant citing procedural illegalities, the Appellate Authority set aside the penalty on 23.12.2021 "without prejudice to further action".

Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority dropped the initial charge sheet but issued a second, identical charge sheet on 06.05.2022 based on the same cause of action.

This second proceeding culminated in a similar penalty order dated 26/27.07.2022.

The applicant challenged the second charge sheet and the "without prejudice" clause as being arbitrary and amounting to double jeopardy.

1. Whether the issuance of a fresh, second charge sheet on the same cause of action and identical facts, after the first was set aside, is legally sustainable or constitutes double jeopardy.

2. Whether the imposition of a penalty without conducting a formal inquiry, despite the delinquent employee denying factual allegations, violates the principles of natural justice.

Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, regarding the procedure for imposing minor penalties.

The Supreme Court precedent in O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India, which establishes that if factual charges are denied, an inquiry is a minimum requirement of natural justice even in minor penalty proceedings.

The doctrine of "Double Jeopardy" and the principle of Nemo debet bis vexari pro uno delicto (no one should be vexed twice for the same offense), as supported by Lt. Governor, Delhi and others v. HC Narinder Singh.

The Tribunal observed that the second charge sheet dated 06.05.2022 was identical in substance to the first charge sheet dated 03.05.2021.

The court reasoned that the Disciplinary Authority erred by failing to conduct a formal inquiry despite the applicant’s denial of the factual allegations, thereby violating the principles of natural justice as mandated by the O.K. Bhardwaj ruling.

It was further determined that allowing a fresh inquiry from scratch on the same charges—rather than resuming from the point where the procedural irregularity occurred—could unfairly allow the administration to suppress evidence favorable to the employee.

The Tribunal concluded that imposing a second penalty for the same cause of action while the first was effectively active or recently set aside constituted double jeopardy and caused undue harassment.

It held that a second penalty based on the same cause of action is impermissible.

Consequently, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 23.12.2021 specifically regarding the expression "without prejudice to further action".

The Original Application was partly allowed.