Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. 1. This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in order passed in No. V-11014/13/2001/L&R(SZ) 3306 dated 14. 2001 on the file of the office of the Deputy Inspector General Central Industrial Security Force, Chennai-90 confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in No.V-12014/CISF/6RB/DISC/MAJ/MDS/2001678 dated 11. 2001 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as punishment is execessive, arbitrary, disproportionate and against the law and direct the fifth respondent to reinstate the petitioner with backwages. 2. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Constable, he was issued with a charge memo under Rule 35 of the CISF Rules, 1969 on 16. 1999 on the allegation that he has submitted an Application on 30.4.1999 to various District and CISF personnel bypassing the prescribed official channel to redress his grievance, for which he submitted his reply dated 26. 1999, narrating all the facts, but the same was not accepted and he was awarded with the punishment of fine equivalent to seven days wages. As against the said order, the petitioner filed an Appeal and the same was also rejected. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that he received another memo of charge dated 18. 2000 alleging the same charge that he had filed his Application dated 30.4.1999 and he had submitted frivolous and mischievous Applications against his superior Officer to the CISF and Civil authorities, for which he submitted his reply dated 29. 2000. Thereafter, the enquiry proceeding was conducted ex parte because of the fact that the request of the petitioner to conduct the enquiry proceeding in Tamil or English was not considered and the same was conducted in Hindi only. Only three witnesses were examined and these witnesses are only from the side of the prosecution and two witnesses were examined and he did not get an opportunity to produce his evidence or to cross-examine the prosecution witness. 4. The further case of the petitioner js that after conducting enquiry, he was removed from service by an order dated 11. 2001 passed by the third respondent. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the fourth respondent and the same was disposed of by an order dated 4. 4. The further case of the petitioner js that after conducting enquiry, he was removed from service by an order dated 11. 2001 passed by the third respondent. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the fourth respondent and the same was disposed of by an order dated 4. 2001 with an observation that the Disciplinary Authority had rightly dealt with the petitioner and for the proven delinquency, the penalty imposed is justified. For the same charge, when punishment of fine has already been awarded, the second punishment of removal from service imposed by an order dated 11. 2001 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is unsustainable in law and amounts to double jeopardy. 5. The further case of the petitioner is that he filed W.P. No.32 of 2002 before the High Court of Jharkhand, believing that the said Court has territorial jurisdiction and the said Writ Petition was dismissed by an order dated 112. 2003 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order in L.P.A. No.254 of 2004 was also dismissed by an order dated 4. 2005 on the same ground of lack of jurisdiction. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file the present Writ Petition. 6. The third respondent has filed the counter affidavit, denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. 8. The petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet dated 16. 1999 for the lapses committed by him, which reads as follows: "Statement of Article of Charge Framed Against No.952291190 Constable MD. Sadique of Cisf Unit,Shar Centre Sriharikota That the said No.952291190 Constable Md. Sadique of CISF Unit SHAR Centre, Sriharikota, has submitted an Application dated 30.4.1999 to various District and CISF Authorities bypassing the prescribed official channel to redress his grievances. This act on the part of the said Constable amounts to gross indiscipline, misconduct, unbecoming member of disciplined force and in violation of Rule 50 of CISF Rules, 1969. Hence the charge." For the aforesaid charge, the punishment of "Fine equivalent to his seven days wages" was imposed on the petitioner by an order dated 7. 1999. 9. Again on 15. 2000, another charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, which reads as follows: "No.952291190 Constable Md. Sadique of CISF 6th Res.Bn. Hence the charge." For the aforesaid charge, the punishment of "Fine equivalent to his seven days wages" was imposed on the petitioner by an order dated 7. 1999. 9. Again on 15. 2000, another charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, which reads as follows: "No.952291190 Constable Md. Sadique of CISF 6th Res.Bn. Arakkonam (TN) was serving at CISF Unit, SHAR Centre, Sriharikkot prior to joining CISF 6th Res.Bn. Arakkonam. While serving in CISF Unit, SHAR Centre he had submitted frivolous and mischievous Applications dated 30.4.1999 to IG/SWS Mumbai against Commandant and Asstt. Commandant, SHAR Centre and Applications dated 13. 1999 and 14. 1999 addressed to Commandant C1SF Unit SHAR Centre against the Asstt. Commandant, CISF Unit Shar Centre, Sriharikota and application dated 30.4.1999 addressed to Deputy Commissioner Nellore against Commandant and was conducted by Shri R.R. Sahay, Commandant, CISF Unit, RCF, Chembur, Mumbai against the Complaint dated 30.4.1999 submitted by Constable Md. Sadique and the allegations made in the Complaint were found frivolous and false vide his Enquiry Report dated 3. 2000. Submitting mischievous and frivolous Application against superiors to Civil and Departmental Authority amounts to gross indiscipline and misconduct. Hence the charge." En the first charge-sheet, the charge against the petitioner is that he addressed the superior Officers individually without following the process and submitting through proper channel. In the second charge-sheet, it is stated that he has addressed the letter to the Civil authorities on 13. 1999 and 14. 1999 and also mentioned that the allegations made in the Complaint dated 30.4.1999 were found frivolous and false. Though there is a difference in the statement, both the charges are one and the same. Added to this, the so called letters are dated 13. 1999 and 14. 1999, which are prior to the date of Complaint i.e. 30.4.1999. Therefore, it is clear that the letters are very much available while framing first charge on 16. 1999. 10. In the counter filed by the third respondent, it is stated as follows: "23. The Respondent humbly state that the plea of the petitioner in this para-F of the Grounds is baseless. The order passed on 7. 1999 and 11. 2001 are for two different charges. The order dated 7. 1999 for bypassing the Channel and violation of Rule 50 of CISF Rules, 1969. The order dated 11. The Respondent humbly state that the plea of the petitioner in this para-F of the Grounds is baseless. The order passed on 7. 1999 and 11. 2001 are for two different charges. The order dated 7. 1999 for bypassing the Channel and violation of Rule 50 of CISF Rules, 1969. The order dated 11. 2001 was passed on the charge in which the petitioner had submitted frivolous and mischievous Application with false allegations against his superior officials to CISF and Civil Authorities." 11. We are unable to appreciate the aforesaid statement made in the counter affidavit. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second charge is also based on the same set of materials, which were available for framing first charge, the second charge cannot be sustained. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are liable to be set aside and accordingly, they are set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.