Issuing a second charge sheet on identical facts and cause of action constitutes impermissible double jeopardy.

The applicant, while serving as a Sub Postmaster, was issued a charge-sheet on May 5, 2021, under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, regarding alleged negligence in 2014–2015 that facilitated a fraud by another official

A penalty of stoppage of increment and recovery of Rs. 15,000 per month was imposed on October 4, 2021

On appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the penalty on December 23, 2021, on technical grounds (citing non-existent rules) but included the expression "without prejudice to further action"

Following this, the Disciplinary Authority dropped the original charge-sheet but issued a fresh, identical charge-sheet on May 6, 2022

A second penalty, identical to the first, was subsequently imposed

The applicant challenged the "without prejudice" clause and the subsequent second disciplinary proceeding as arbitrary and amounting to double jeopardy

1. Whether the issuance of a fresh charge-sheet on the same cause of action and identical charges constitutes double jeopardy

2. Whether the Disciplinary Authority is required to conduct a formal inquiry when factual allegations are denied, even in minor penalty proceedings

The court applied Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964

It relied on the precedent set in Lt. Governor, Delhi and others v. HC Narinder Singh, which prohibits a second penalty based on the same cause of action

It further applied the principle from O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India, mandating an inquiry into factual disputes to satisfy the principles of natural justice

Finally, the court invoked the legal maxim Nemo debet bis vexari pro uno delicto, asserting that no person should be vexed twice for the same offence

The Tribunal compared the two charge-sheets and found them to be based on the same cause of action and identical charges

It observed that the Disciplinary Authority failed to conduct a formal inquiry despite the applicant denying the factual allegations, which violates the requirement of natural justice established in O.K. Bhardwaj

The Tribunal reasoned that since the Appellate Authority had already set aside the first penalty, allowing a second proceeding on the same facts would subject the employee to double jeopardy

It specifically criticized the remit for de novo trial, noting that an inquiry should only be resumed from the point where the procedural irregularity occurred, rather than starting afresh, to prevent the wiping out of evidence favorable to the employee

Consequently, the "without prejudice" clause was found to be legally untenable

It further held that a penalty cannot be imposed without an inquiry when charges are factual and denied

The O.A. was partly allowed, and the Tribunal quashed and set aside the expression "without prejudice to further action" in the impugned order dated December 23, 2021