R. V. RAVEENDRAN J. ( 1 ) THE respondent is working as Sub-Post Master in the Department of posts. A charge memo dated 12-6-1996 was issued to him by the disciplinary authority (first petitioner) containing three charges. Respondent denied the charges. No action was taken for nearly three years. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order dated 16-3-1999, dropping the proceedings. The said order reads thus: whereas, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 were initiated against Sri V. B. Ravindranathan, postal Assistant, Wilson Garden S. O. , Bangalore - 560 027 vide Memo of even number dated 12-6-1996. And whereas, Sri G. N. Puthuraya, then Deputy SPOs, Bangalore south Division, the prime witness in the case is expired. Now, therefore, the undersigned drops the said proceedings without prejudice to further action which may be considered in the case. ( 2 ) MORE than four years thereafter, another charge memo dated 29-9-2000 was issued by the disciplinary authority to the respondent in regard to the very same charges, which were dropped by order dated 16-3-1999. Feeling aggrieved, respondent presented an appeal dated 12-10-2000 to the Director of Postal Services (second respondent) contending that a second charge memo cannot be issued in regard to the very same charges, and seeking a direction to the disciplinary authority not to proceed with the matter. The said representation/appeal was rejected by communication dated 10-11-2000 on the ground that there was no provision for an appeal against a charge memo. Thereafter, by order dated 17-8-2001, the disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. ( 3 ) THE respondent filed O. A No. 1151 of 2001 before the Central administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, for quashing the charge memo dated 29-9-2000 and seeking a direction to the petitioners to withdraw the charges and stop the enquiry forthwith. The Tribunal by order dated 13-6-2002, allowed the application and quashed the second enquiry initiated as per charge memo dated 29-9-2000. Feeling aggrieved, the department has filed this petition. ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the charges I and II in the charge memo dated 12-6-1996 and charges I and II in the charge memo dated 29-9-2000 are the same. Charge in in the charge memo dated 29-9-2000 is not a new charge, but a consequential charge related to charge II. ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that the charges I and II in the charge memo dated 12-6-1996 and charges I and II in the charge memo dated 29-9-2000 are the same. Charge in in the charge memo dated 29-9-2000 is not a new charge, but a consequential charge related to charge II. For convenience, we extract below relevant portions of the said charges: charges levelled in Charge Memo dated 12-6-1996 charges levelled in Charge Memo dated 29-9-2000 article I That the said Sri V. B. Ravindranathan. . . . misbehaved with Sri Vageesh Varada, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Bangalore South, Sub-Division II, Bangalore on 10-2-1996 at Koramangala S. O. and thereby acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant in contravention of Rule 3 (l) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article I That the said Sri V. B. Ravindranathan. . . . misbehaved with Sri Vageesh Varada, then ASPOs II, Bangalore South, Sub-Division, Bangalore - 560 041 on 10-2-1996 at Koramangala S. O. and thereby acted in a manner of unbecoming of a Government servant and violated conditions laid down in Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article II That the said Sri V. B. Ravindranathan. . . . on 7-3-1996 behaved discourteously with Sri G. N. Puthuraya, Deputy SPOs, Bangalore South Division, Bangalore violating Rule 3 (A) (a) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and on 8-3-1996 confined Sri G. N. Puthuraya in a room inside the SJMC P. O. premises and thereby acted in the manner unbecoming of a Government servant in contravention of Rule 3 (l) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article II That the said Sri V. B. Ravindranathan. . . . behaved discourteously with late G. N. Puthuraya, then Deputy SPOs, Bangalore South Division, Bangalore - 560 041 on 7-3-1996, refused to carry out the orders of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bangalore South Division, conveyed to him on 8-3-1996 vide Memo No. B1/2-16/1995-96, dated 7-3-1996 and misbehaved with and forcibly confined late Sri G. N. Puthuraya, then Deputy Superintendent of POs, Bangalore South Division, in a room inside SJMC PO on 8-3-1996 and thereby acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and violating conditions laid down in Rule 3 (l) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article III That the said Sri V. B. Ravindranathan was proceeded against on 3 previous occasions under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for similar misconduct. In spite of corrective measures and leniency shown to him, Sri V. B. Ravindranathan has failed to correct and improve his conduct, thereby continued to behave in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant violating Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article III That the said Sri V. B. Ravindranathan while functioning as SPM, SJMC during the aforesaid period on 8-3-1996 refused to give statement to the SPOs, Bangalore South and exhibited insubordination and disobedience inasmuch as he refused to obey the orders of SSPOs conveyed to him by the ASPOs, Bangalore South, Sub-Divisions i and II on 8-3-1996 and by this Act he contravened Rule 3 (l) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Nil - ( 5 ) IT is well-settled that an employee cannot be charged with the same misconduct twice, either by issuing two charge memos or by conducting two departmental enquiries. There are, however, two recognised exceptions. The first is, where the charge memo or enquiry proceedings is quashed by a Court or Tribunal on technical grounds, reserving liberty to issue a fresh charge memo or hold a fresh enquiry. The second is, where the charge memo is withdrawn in view of a technical defect by disclosing the reason for such withdrawal, reserving liberty to issue a fresh charge memo in regard to the very same misconduct. The reason given for withdrawal should necessarily be such, which requires or necessitates withdrawal of the charge memo. On the other hand if the charge memo/enquiry is withdrawn/dropped reserving liberty to initiate fresh action, but without assigning any reason, or by assigning reasons which are not relevant or by assigning wholly inadequate or inappropriate reasons for issue of a fresh charge memo or revival of the enquiry, a fresh charge memo cannot be issued in regard to the very same charges. The principle underlying Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC will generally apply in such a situation. ( 6 ) IN this case, the charge memo dated 12-6-1996, which was dropped on 16-3-1999, contained three charges. The second charge memo dated 29-9-2000 was issued repeating charges 1 and 2 of the first charge memo. The principle underlying Order 23, Rule 1 of the CPC will generally apply in such a situation. ( 6 ) IN this case, the charge memo dated 12-6-1996, which was dropped on 16-3-1999, contained three charges. The second charge memo dated 29-9-2000 was issued repeating charges 1 and 2 of the first charge memo. Charge 1 in both charge memos is the same and relate to the misbehaviour of respondent with one Vageesh Varada on 10-2-1996. Similarly, charge 2 in both charge memos is the same relating to alleged discourteous behaviour of respondent on 7-3-1996 towards G. N. Puthuraya, Deputy SPO and forcibly confining the said G. N. Puthuraya in a room on 8-3-1996. Charge 3 of the second charge memo is nothing but a consequential or additional charge, based on the second charge and does not have an independent existence. ( 7 ) NO reason was assigned in the withdrawal order dated 16-3-1999 for withdrawing the first charge. Therefore, it has to be held that the first charge was withdrawn unconditionally without assigning any reason. ( 8 ) THE reason given in the withdrawal order dated 16-3-1999 for withdrawing the second charge is that the said G. N. Puthuraya, described as the 'prime witness', had died. But, the death of a witness by itself is not a ground for withdrawing the charge. If the charge can be proved by other evidence, nothing prevented the department from proceeding with the enquiry by placing such other evidence. But, if the department felt that on the death of the main witness, the charge could not be established and therefore dropped the charge, the withdrawal is unconditional and the charge cannot thereafter be revived. Therefore, even if the withdrawal order dated 16-3-1999 stated that the dropping of proceedings is without prejudice to any further action that may be considered in the matter, it will not entitle the employer to issue a fresh charge memo in regard to the same charges. Hence, we hold that the second charge memo dated 29-9-2000 is illegal and invalid. ( 9 ) ONE other aspect requires to be noticed. The first charge memo dated 12-6-1996 related to two incidents alleged to have occurred on 10-2-1996 and 7-3-1996. When the respondent denied the charges, the department did not choose to proceed with the enquiry, but waited for nearly two years and nine months before dropping the disciplinary proceedings. ( 9 ) ONE other aspect requires to be noticed. The first charge memo dated 12-6-1996 related to two incidents alleged to have occurred on 10-2-1996 and 7-3-1996. When the respondent denied the charges, the department did not choose to proceed with the enquiry, but waited for nearly two years and nine months before dropping the disciplinary proceedings. Having dropped the proceedings and treated the period of suspension of respondent as period on duty for all purposes, the department issued a fresh charge memo four years later. No reason is forthcoming as to why the charges have been revived and that too after four years. The inordinate unexplained delay in issuing the charge memo is itself a ground for quashing the second charge memo. ( 10 ) THE petitioners relied on Government circular dated 28-4-1993 which according to them enabled the disciplinary authority to issue a second charge memo in certain circumstances. The relevant portion of the circular is extracted below:"it is therefore emphasised upon all the disciplinary authorities to take care that clear and appropriate reasons are mentioned in the orders withdrawing/dropping action in a disciplinary matter of show-cause notice. Such orders must also clearly mention that the disciplinary proceeding or show-cause notice is being dropped without any prejudice to further disciplinary action which could be subsequently taken in the matter". The petitioner contend that while dropping the proceedings arising from the first charge memo the department had specifically stated that it was done without prejudice to further action, which may be considered in the case and therefore the disciplinary authority can issue a fresh charge memo on the very same charges. But, the said circular makes it clear that 'clear and appropriate' reasons should be given in the order dropping the disciplinary proceedings, apart from specifically stating that dropping of proceedings is without prejudice to further disciplinary action. In this case, we have already held that no proper or appropriate reason has been given while dropping the proceedings. As noticed above the only reason that is given is one G. N. Puthuraya, the prime witness had expired. The charge memo shows that only the second charge related to G. N. Puthuraya and he had nothing to do with the first and the third charges in the charge memo dated 12-6-1996. As noticed above the only reason that is given is one G. N. Puthuraya, the prime witness had expired. The charge memo shows that only the second charge related to G. N. Puthuraya and he had nothing to do with the first and the third charges in the charge memo dated 12-6-1996. Therefore, the death of Puthuraya did not, in any way, come in the way of the department proceeding with the enquiry with reference to first and the third charges. Nevertheless, the department chose to drop those charges also without assigning any reason. Insofar as second charge is concerned we have already pointed out that the department could have let in other evidence to prove the charge, even if G. N. Puthuraya was dead. It did not do so. If death of Puthuraya was considered fatal to charge 2, necessitating dropping of the charge, it is obvious that it cannot subsequently be revived. Therefore, the reliance of Government Circular dated 28-4-1993 will in no way assist the petitioners to issue a second charge memo. ( 11 ) WE, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Petition is accordingly rejected at the stage of admission. We make it clear that the department is at liberty to issue a charge memo in regard to any charge unconnected with the charges mentioned in the first charge memo dated 12-6-1996. --- *** --- .