JUDGMENT : U.N. Sinha, C.J. 1. The petitioner has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying a charge-sheet, dated the 12th May, 1969 (a copy of which has been given as Annexure 6) be quashed. The charge may be reproduced in its entirety, as follows: That the said Shri Ayodhya Prasad Pandey while functioning as Assistant Parcel Clerk, Gaya during the period on 31.3.1965 committed an act of utter negligence in duty and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in that he booked parcels etc. and issued connected Railway receipts without collecting parcel freights due. The short facts are these. On the 31st March, 1965, the petitioner was working as an Assistant Parcel Clerk at Gaya Railway Station, in the outward Parcel Office. The office was raided by the staff of Special Police Establishment, on receipt of certain confidential report and in due course a proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner. The file number of the case was CS/DNR/4/SPE/65 and the first charge-sheet drawn up was dated the 19th May, 1965. 2. The allegation against the petitioner at that stage was that he had committed certain misconduct in allowing an outsider to handle Government cash in contravention of the rules. Ultimately, this charge was withdrawn. Then, a second charge-sheet was framed against the petitioner in 1966. The file number was identically the same, CS/DNR/4/SPE/65. On the same facts ascertained in the raid held on the 31st March, 1965, the second charge was to the effect that the petitioner had committed misconduct and he had not maintained absolute integrity and devotion to duty, inasmuch as he was alleged to have collected bribes through a certain person. The further allegation was that he had allowed this outsider to handle railway property and cash contravening certain rules of the Railway Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1956. This charge appears to have been elaborately enquired into and a report was given on the 8th September, 1967 (a copy of which has been given as Annexure 5). This report was submitted by the Assistant Commercial Superintendent, Dinapore. The petitioner was exonerated from the charge and the recommendation of this enquiring officer was that the allegations against the petitioner could not be proved beyond doubt. This report was submitted by the Assistant Commercial Superintendent, Dinapore. The petitioner was exonerated from the charge and the recommendation of this enquiring officer was that the allegations against the petitioner could not be proved beyond doubt. This recommendation was accepted by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent and a copy of the ORDER :passed in or about September, 1967 has been given as Annexure C to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. Annexure C refers to file no. CS/DNR/4/SPE/65 and it mentioned therein that the allegations made against the petitioner had not been substantiated and the file was to be put up before the Divisional Commercial Superintendent. The latter endorsed on the file "I accept the findings. Advise V.O. accordingly." It is said that V.O. stands for the Vigilance Officer. According to the petitioner, the Divisional Commercial Superintendent was his appointing authority. In Paragraph 10 of the writ application the petitioner has stated that the conclusion of the Divisional Commercial Superintendent had not been dissented from by respondent no. 2, who is the Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Dinapore Division. Thereafter, on the 14th June, 1968 an ORDER :appears to have been passed by the Senior Deputy General Manager, Vigilance (a copy of which has been given as Annexure D to the counter-affidavit) suggesting to the then Divisional Superintendent that fresh charges be drawn up against the petitioner for issuing railway receipts without collecting freight due. Apparently, on the ORDER :incorporated in Annexure D the latest charge, dated the 12th May, 1969 has been framed and this matter is more or less admitted in Paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, where the entire history has been traced out, as stated above. Towards the end of this paragraph of the counter-affidavit it is stated that after the matter was reviewed by the Senior Deputy General Manager, Vigilance, who is the head of the Vigilance Department, a letter was received from the said officer by the Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Dinapore, directing the issuance of a fresh charge-sheet and hence a fresh charge-sheet was framed on the 12th May, 1969. Only one significant fact has been mentioned at the end of Paragraph 6. Only one significant fact has been mentioned at the end of Paragraph 6. That is to the effect that the latest charge-sheet was framed "on fresh allegations of facts." According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is entirely wrong to state that there are any fresh allegations of facts and all the facts and circumstances are the same, so far as the incident, which had taken place on the 31st March, 1965, is concerned. Our attention has specifically been drawn to the details given in Annexure 5, which was the report given by the Assistant Commercial Superintendent on the 8th September, 1967. This is also clear from the present allegations on the basis of which the latest charge has been framed and these allegations are part of Annexure 6. These allegations mentioned the same raid which had taken place on the 31st March, 1965 and it is stated in these allegations that during the raid it was found that parcel way bills were issued between certain hours and there is a reference as to what had happened at the time of the raid. In the present allegations it has been mentioned that according to rules, freight of parcel must be collected simultaneously with the issue of the railway receipts, and that the petitioner was negligent, inasmuch as he had issued railway receipts without collecting the freight. No doubt these allegations have been made in the present case, but the facts mentioned in the report (Annexure 5) were as follows: Moreover since the R/Rs were not detached from the P.W. Bill Book and made over to the party, according to the prevailing system at Gaya the freight money was not collected. To suit convenience of the merchants as well as of the staff on duty, at the end all the R/Rs. are detached, and the freight collected and duty deposited. There was never any shortages in Booking, nor there was any attempt to deprive the Rlys. from its due revenue, but only for convenience sake, the freight was collected afterwards while making over the R/Rs. 3. Apparently at the earlier stage, the case of the Railway authorities accepted by all the officers was that the railway receipt had not been detached from the Parcel Way Bill Book and made over to any party. from its due revenue, but only for convenience sake, the freight was collected afterwards while making over the R/Rs. 3. Apparently at the earlier stage, the case of the Railway authorities accepted by all the officers was that the railway receipt had not been detached from the Parcel Way Bill Book and made over to any party. The fact found at that stage, was that at the time when the railway receipts were detached from the book, freights used to be collected and duly deposited. This has been repeated in the report at an earlier stage also in the following words: At the end of duty hour of the APCS the Rly. receipts are detached from the P.W. Bills Book and the total freight on all the Rly. Receipts pertaining to Dhanesher Mishra is collected and deposited in the Rly. cash. 4. According to the report, this seems to have been the usual mode employed at that time to the knowledge of the Senior Traffic Inspector of Accounts, whose name was mentioned in the report and who has been examined as a witness. On these findings accepted by the Divisional Commercial Superintendent, the petitioner had been exonerated of the charge which had, at that stage, been framed against him. It is difficult to hold that new allegations of facts have been made against the petitioner and the facts mentioned in Annexure D itself make it quite clear that there were no fresh allegations of fact at that stage. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is quite correct that repeated charges have been framed against his client on same allegations of fact and a continuance of the proceeding on the latest charge will only be one of harassment to the petitioner. It has also been contended on Rule 1736 of the Conduct and Discipline Rules for Railway servants that the Senior Deputy General Manager, Vigilance, had no jurisdiction to review the matter by his ORDER :, dated the 14th June, 1968, as under that rule no review was permissible after six months of the completion of the proceeding in September 1967. Mr. Mr. P.K. Bose appearing for the respondents has referred to new Rule 25 of 1968, contending that this was not a case of review, but that the Senior Deputy General Manager, Vigilance, could pass his ORDER :incorporated in Annexure D as an officer senior to the Divisional Superintendent, Dinapore. I do not think, it is necessary to go into the question of the rules relied upon by the learned counsel for the two parties, as it is enough to hold that the latest charge against the petitioner, dated the 12th May, 1969 is really based on same facts and circumstances which had been considered earlier and which had been dealt with in the report, dated the 8th September, 1967 (Annexure 5). On a comparison of the facts mentioned in Annexure 5 with the allegations made in the present incident, it is clear that the proceeding now instituted will inevitably terminate in favour of the petitioner, as no new facts and circumstances can come on the record against the facts determined on the 8th September, 1967. In my opinion, the Senior Deputy General Manager, Vigilance, ought not to have passed his ORDER :incorporated in Annexure D in haste, without looking into the entire record of the proceeding. It will be against natural justice to allow the present proceeding to continue in connection with a State case, in which an event had taken place on the 31st March, 1965. In such circumstances, I am of opinion that the entire proceeding, which has now been instituted on a charge, dated the 12th May, 1969, should be quashed. The respondents are, therefore, restrained from continuing with the proceeding based on the charge mentioned in Annexure 6 of the writ application. This is also a fit case in which the petitioner should be granted costs of this Court, which I assess at Rs. 200/- I agree.