Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 23 (PAT)

Umesh Chandra Pandey v. State Of Bihar

2001-01-10

S.N.JHA

body2001
Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the decision of the State Government to initiate disciplinary proceeding and place the petitioner under suspension pending such proceeding. From the copy of the decision/order as contained in memo no. 599 dated 10.5.99 issued under the hand of Deputy Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, it appears that the said decision was followed by a formal resolution of the State Government contained in memo no. 655 dated 17.5.99 of the Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department which was accompanied by the memo of charge. 2. The short point urged on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner on which the petition is fit to succeed, is that with respect to self same charge earlier proceedings had been initiated against him in which the petitioner was exonerated. 3. The case of the petitioner that the charge which is subject-matter of the present proceeding is the same as the one which was the subject-matter of the previous proceeding is not disputed by the respondents. Nonetheless they seek to defend the decision to initiate the proceeding on the ground, inter alia, that the relevant file had been seized by the CBl and as the relevant documents/evidence were not available, the Government decided to close the proceeding. It may be mentioned here that nothing of the kind was stated in the order by which the petitioner was exonerated of the charges. In the order which has been issued in the form of resolution, it was stated that the show cause filed by the petitioner was considered in the light of the report of the Enquiry Officer and upon consideration thereof the Government had come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. The aforesaid resolution being conscious decision of the Government, l do not think it is open to the Government to initiate fresh proceeding with respect to same charges. In State of Assam V/s. J.N. Roy Biswas, AIR 1975 Supreme Court 2277 the Apex Court has held that even though rule of double jeopardy may be applicable, in the absence of rule, after the delinquent has been absolved, second enquiry is not permissible. In the instant case, as the State Government not only took the decision to exonerate the petitioner but also communicated the same to him, at later stage it could not reopen the matter. The. In the instant case, as the State Government not only took the decision to exonerate the petitioner but also communicated the same to him, at later stage it could not reopen the matter. The. case in my opinion, is squarely covered by above said decision of the Apex Court. 4. In these premises, the impugned order dated 10.5.99 as also the impugned resolution dated 17.5.99 contained in Annexures 4 and 5 are quashed. 5. After the above order was dictated counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the petitioner has retired from service on 31.1.2000. It is open to him to represent his case in the department, on the basis of the present order of this Court, for pensionary benefits etc. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of.