Second disciplinary proceeding on identical charges and same cause of action is legally impermissible.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant, was initially issued a charge sheet on December 3, 2020, involving three articles of charge. Following an inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of stoppage of increment and recovery of funds on September 24, 2021

Upon appeal, the Appellate Authority quashed the punishment order on January 12, 2022, and the Disciplinary Authority subsequently dropped the original charge sheet on January 31, 2022

However, the respondents issued a fresh charge sheet on February 24, 2022, based on the exact same cause of action and identical charges

The respondents contended the fresh issuance was necessary because the previous proceedings incorrectly cited the "CCS (Conduct) Rules 1965" instead of the "CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964"

1. Whether the respondent authorities are legally permitted to issue a second/fresh charge sheet on the same cause of action and identical set of charges after the original proceedings were quashed and dropped

2. Whether the issuance of a fresh charge sheet to correct a clerical error regarding the nomenclature of the Conduct Rules is permissible under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the Constitution of India

The Tribunal applied the principle of Nemo debet bis vexari pro uno delicto, which dictates that no person should be vexed twice for the same offense

It relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Lt. Governor, Delhi and Others v. HC Narinder Singh (2004) 13 SCC 342, which prohibits fresh proceedings on identical charges

Further reliance was placed on Canara Bank v. Swapan Kumar Pani (2006) 3 SCC 251 and Nand Kumar Verma v. State of Jharkhand (2012) 3 SCC 580 regarding the limitations of disciplinary proceedings

The court also referenced its own consistent rulings in Ratan Debnath v. Union of India (O.A. No. 122/2021) and Sri Remigious Syiem v. Union of India (O.A. No. 043/00243/2022)

The Tribunal observed that both parties admitted the fresh charge sheet dated February 24, 2022, was based on the same cause of action and identical charges as the earlier one from December 3, 2020

While the respondents argued the second charge sheet was merely to correct a clerical error in the citation of the Conduct Rules (1964 vs. 1965), the Tribunal found this insufficient to bypass the settled position of law

Applying the ratio from HC Narinder Singh, the Tribunal reasoned that initiating a second inquiry on the same facts after the first had been concluded/dropped constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice and Constitutional protections under Articles 14, 16, and 21

The Tribunal emphasized that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, and subjecting an employee to repetitive proceedings for the same act is a legal overreach

It held that the impugned action was dehors the established procedure for disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned Charge Sheet dated February 24, 2022