JUDGMENT V.M. Velumani, J. 1. The Appellant/Writ Petitioner was working as Inspector of Police at Thillai Nagar Police Station in Trichy City during the period from 10.11.1999 to 2.12.2001. On 8.11.2001, one A. Roche approached the Writ Petitioner for setting up a fire crackers shop during deewali festival time. Initially, on 6.11.2001, the Writ Petitioner has not recommended for granting permission. But subsequently, after two days, i.e., on 8.11.2001, he issued No Objection Certificate without any change in circumstances. The said A. Roche/Complainant gave a Complaint on 8.11.2001 to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption stating that the applied for setting up crackers shop and met Deputy Commissioner of Police Thiru. Baskaran on 7.11.2001 and again on 8.11.2001. On his instructions, she met the Writ Petitioner again. on 8.11.2001, the Writ Petitioner gave No Objection Certificate and directed the Complainant to meet one Loganathan, Grade I Police constable. In his Complaint, he has stated that the said Loganathan demanded a sum of Rs.8,000/- on behalf of the Writ Petitioner. 2. Based on the said Complaint, a Charge Memo, dated 7.4.2005 containing the following charges were framed was issued to the Writ Petitioner: “(i) Gross reprehensible conduct by falsely recorded in his Note Book that he left the station at 1030 hrs and was on rounds at various places between 1100 hrs and 1430 hrs on 16.11.2001, but Tr. Roche S/o. Antonysamy No.11, S.V. Koil Street, Kaveri Nagar, Crawford, Trichy has met him at Thillai Nagar at 1115 hrs on 6.11.2011 and handed over the cover to him. (ii) Gross reprehensible conduct by not recorded his visit and checking of Farmer Shandy beat both in his Note Book and in his daily diary, even though he visited and checked the Beat No.55 at Farmers Shandy at 1845 hrs on 8.11.2001 and made a note of it in the respective Beat Ticket. (iii) Gross reprehensible conduct by not made any note of checking of PC 2457 Ravichandran at the farmers Shandy at 1845 hrs on 8.11.2001 in the Beat Ticket (No.55), his Note Book and his daily diary. (iii) Gross reprehensible conduct by not made any note of checking of PC 2457 Ravichandran at the farmers Shandy at 1845 hrs on 8.11.2001 in the Beat Ticket (No.55), his Note Book and his daily diary. (iv) Gross reprehensible conduct in duty by preparing a different recommendatory report in the absence of any change of circumstances and ante-dated it by 6.11.2001 at the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, as he had previously wrote a Non-recommendatory Report on 6.11.2001 and sent it to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and then on 8.11.2001 morning he tore the earlier Report into pieces, kept the pieces in his pant packet and manipulated it for a different report. (v) Gross reprehensible conduct in duty by the issued first Report on the same day on 6.11.2001 at his office and issued the second Report on 8.11.2001 in both the reports he falsely recorded that he inspected the place where license was sought by the Applicant Tr. Roche S/o. Antonysamy, No.11, S.V. Koil Street, Kaveri Nagar, Crawford, Trichy though he didn’t inspect the said place either on 6.11.2001 or any other day till 8.11.2001. (vi) Gross reprehensible conduct in duty by not recorded anything about his inspection in respect of Application of Tr. Roche S/o. Antonysamy, No.11, S.V. Koil Street, Kaveri Nagar, Crawford, Trichy in his Note Book or his Daily Diary or the Station General Diary on any day from 6.11.2001 to 8.11.2001 through he has reorded so in respect of other four similar cases (1) No.20/93-94, Selvaraj (2) No.19/2000-2001 Kumaravel, (3) No.11/2000-2001 Sivakumar (4) No.123/2000-2001 Selvaraj in his Note Book and Daily Diary between 2015 hrs and 2200 hrs on 6.11.2001.” 3. After framing charges, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. After full fledged enquiry and examining all the witnesses, the Enquiry Officer gave a Report dated 30.7.2007 holding the Charges 1, 4 to 6 were proved. Based on the said Enquiry Report, after following the procedures, punishment was imposed on the Appellant by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, in G.O.2(D) No.227, dated 21.4.2008 being stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect. A Criminal Complaint was also lodged with the jurisdictional Police based on the Complaint dated 8.11.2001 given by the Complainant. The Writ Petitioner was arrayed as Second accused in the said Criminal case. The said Loganathan Grade I Constable was arrayed as First Accused. A Criminal Complaint was also lodged with the jurisdictional Police based on the Complaint dated 8.11.2001 given by the Complainant. The Writ Petitioner was arrayed as Second accused in the said Criminal case. The said Loganathan Grade I Constable was arrayed as First Accused. While the Criminal case was pending, another Charge Memo dated 25.6.2008 containing the following charges was issued to the Writ Petitioner and to the said S. Loganathan. “1. It is proposed to hold an inquiry against Thiru. R. Rajkumar, Inspector of Police, formerly of Thillai Nagar PS, Trichy City now Police Computer Wing, Chennai, under Rule 3(b) Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. The substance of allegations namely, the imputations of conduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held as mentioned in Annexure-I. A statement of allegations namely, the imputations of conduct or misbehaviour in support of each charge is enclosed in Annexure II. A list of documents by which and a List of Witnesses by whom, the charges are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed in Annexure-III and IV respectively. Any other witnesses and documents which are found necessary will be examined during the course of the enquiry. 2. Thiru R. Rajkumar, Inspector of Police, formerly of Thillainagar PS, Trichy City now Police Computer Wing, Chennai is directed to submit his explanation within 15 days of receipts of this Memo, a Written Statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires an oral enquiry or to be heard in person or both. If the Written Statement of defence is not received within the stipulated time, it will be presumed that he has nothing to offer in his defence and further action will be pursued.” 4. The Writ Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No.6375 of 2008 challenging the Charge Memo dated 25.6.2008. He sought the relief to quash the said Charge Memo on the ground that based on the same Complaint, dated 8.11.2001, a second Charge Memo was issued and on the ground of delay, i.e. after lapse of seven years, the second Charge Memo is issued. 5. He also alleged that charges ought to have been framed at the first instance itself. 5. He also alleged that charges ought to have been framed at the first instance itself. After imposing punishment, the Department cannot issue another Charge Memo and cannot conduct another enquiry and impose punishment based on the same Complaint on the same set of facts. He alleged that it would amount to double jeopardy. 6. The learned Single Judge rejected all the contentions of the Writ Petitioner and dismissed the Writ Petition for the following reasons: (i) Comparison of both the Charge memo reveals that the charges are entirely different and based on different set of facts. (ii) Charges are grave in nature and therefore, the present Charge Memo is maintainable. (iii) The delay in framing charges is not fatal in all the cases. When charges are grave in nature, the delay cannot be the ground to quash the Charge Memo. Against the said Order, the present Appeal is filed. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondent. 8. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the second Charge Memo cannot be issued based on the same Complaint on the same set of facts. The witnesses examined in the first enquiry are the same for present enquiry also. The Authorities have conducted an enquiry earlier and imposed punishment. The present Charge Memo would amount to double jeopardy. The learned Single Judge erred in holding that the charges are different based on different set of facts. But, in fact, both the Charge memos are based on the same Complaint. The reason given by the learned Judge for the delay in issuing the second Charge Memo is not valid and legal. The delay is causing prejudice to the Appellant. Further pending Writ Appeal, the Appellant/Writ Petitioner had acquitted by the Criminal Court on the ground that prosecution has not able to prove its case against the Second Accused/Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the Charge Memo and to allow the Writ Appeal. 9. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the following Judgments: (1) Capt. Hence, he prayed for quashing of the Charge Memo and to allow the Writ Appeal. 9. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the following Judgments: (1) Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another, 1999 (2) CTC 579 (SC) : 1999 (3) SCC 679 ; (2) District Revenue Officer, Erode District, Erode v. R. Palanisamy, Assistant, Erode District Revenue Unit, Erode and another, 2006 (1) MLJ 169 ; (3) G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and others, 2006 (3) CTC 494 (SC) : 2006 (5) SCC 446 ; (4) Thangaian and another v. Superintendent of Police, Special Branch C.I.D., Chennai 4 and others, 2012 (3) LLN 719 (MAD) : 2012 (5) MLJ 961 ; (5) Union of India v. V. Sekar and another, 2005 (1) CTC 566 ; (6) K. Damodaran v. The Registrar, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and others, 2006 (3) CTC 665 ; (7) Mohammed Sadique v. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and others, 2009 (4) CTC 209 (DB) : 2009 (7) MLJ 356 ; and (8) L.T. Governor, Delhi and others, v. H.C. Narinder Singh, 2004 (13) SCC 342 . 10. In K. Damodaran v. The Registrar, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and others, 2006 (3) CTC 665 , the Division Bench of this Court has held that second Charge Memo on same set of allegations is not maintainable and quashed the proceedings. In the said Judgment in Paragraph No.6, it has been held as follows: “6. After going through the materials on record, it is amply clear that the allegation made in the first Charge Memo is similar to the allegation made in the second Charge Memo. Since the Appellate Authority has already dealt with the matter and had directed reinstatement of the Petitioner, and there was no direction for any fresh enquiry, it was not open for the Deputy Superintendent of Police to initiate a fresh proceeding. It is thus obvious that subsequent proceeding is without jurisdiction, which is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. W.P.M.P. is closed.” 11. In Mohammed Sadique v. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and others, 2009 (7) MLJ 356 , in Paragraph Nos.9 & 11, it has been held thus: “9. It is thus obvious that subsequent proceeding is without jurisdiction, which is accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. W.P.M.P. is closed.” 11. In Mohammed Sadique v. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and others, 2009 (7) MLJ 356 , in Paragraph Nos.9 & 11, it has been held thus: “9. Again on 11.5.2000, 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. 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 Asst. Commandant, SHAR Centre and Applications dated 13.3.1999 and 19.4.1999 addressed to Commandant CISF 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. Shay, 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 10.3.2000. Submitting mischievous and frivolous Application against superiors to Civil and Departmental Authority amounts to gross indiscipline and misconduct. Hence, the charge.” In 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 13.3.1999 and 19.4.1999 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 13.3.1999 and 19.4.1999, 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 17.6.1999.” “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. 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.” 12. We have perused the cause of action for the proceedings initiated by the Department in the first Charge Memo as well as the second Charge Memo, which is the Complaint of the Said A. Roche, who approached the officers of the Police Department of getting ‘No Objection Certificate’ to set up a fire cracker shop. The Charge Memo dated 7.4.2005 is based on the Complaint give by A. Roche dated 8.11.2001, wherein he stated that the Police Authorities including the Appellant were delaying the issuance of ‘No Objection Certificate’ and also demanded bribe. It is the case of the Complainant that a sum of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) was demanded by the Appellant through Logananthan, Grade I-Police Constable. The Department in this case chose to proceed against the Appellant on various misconducts which include the Complaint of the said A. Roche dated 8.11.2001, but for some reason or other, did not choose to issue a Charge Memo in respect of the allegation relating to illegal gratification. On the first Charge Memo dated 7.4.2005, enquiry was conducted and punishment was imposed and the matter was put to rest then and there. Thereafter, the matter has been resurrected after more than seven years and the second Charge Memo is issued and this is also based on the Complaint of the said A. Roche dated 8.11.2001. It is, therefore, clear that the basis for the first Charge Memo and the present Charge Memo is one and the same. It is another matter that the first charge contained other issues as well. The fact remains that on the plea of illegal gratification, the Department did not choose to proceed further. In any event, the Criminal case with regard to the demand of illegal gratification ended in acquittal. The decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Antony’s case referred to supra and G.M. Tank’s case, respectively, would clearly cover the issue on hand. In any event, the Criminal case with regard to the demand of illegal gratification ended in acquittal. The decisions of the Honourable Apex Court in Capt. M. Paul Antony’s case referred to supra and G.M. Tank’s case, respectively, would clearly cover the issue on hand. Furthermore, the Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that the fresh proceedings on the basis of the same issue and on the same set of allegations and corresponding materials, is not sustainable. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not correct in dismissing the Writ Petition overlooking this legal plea. 13. The impugned proceedings is liable to be interfered with for the following reasons: (i) Comparison of two Charge Memos clearly reveals that both the charges are framed based on the same Complaint dated 8.11.2001 given by the Complainant-A. Roche. (ii) The materials forming basis of the second Charge Memo was also available at the time of framing the first Charge Memo. (iii) The Respondent cannot conduct the Departmental enquiry in a peace meal manner, according to their whims and fancies. (iv) The delay in framing charges will definitely cause prejudice to the Appellant, as he has put forth his defence during the first enquiry and also in the trial before the Criminal Court. (v) Pending Writ Appeal, the Appellant was acquitted by a Competent Criminal Court after full fledged trial. But acquittal in Criminal proceedings is not a bar for the Department to initiate Departmental proceedings on the same set of facts. But, in the present case, the acquittal in Criminal case has to be considered in favour of the Appellant, as he has faced domestic enquiry on earlier occasion and suffered punishment and the issue raised in the present Charge Memo was given up seven years ago. (vi) If the present Charge Memo is not quashed, the Appellant will be forced to another enquiry on the basis of the Complaint dated 8.11.2001 and on the same set of facts and materials. The Writ Appeal and Writ Petition are allowed and impugned proceedings are quashed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.