Three employees challenged fresh disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Corporation of Chennai for identical charges after they had already served punishment. The High Court held that initiating fresh proceedings after punishment constituted double jeopardy.
The impugned charge memos dated 7 June 2013 were quashed, and the Writ Petitions were allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.3.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
W.P. Nos.18533 to 18535 of 2013 A. Johnson ... petitioner in W.P.No.18533/2013 R.Gangadevi ... petitioner in W.P.No.18534/2013 E.Govindaraji ... petitioner in W.P.No.18535/2013 versus 1.The Corporation of Chennai, rep. By its Commissioner, Chennai 600 003. 2.The Secretary (in-charge) Appointment Committee, Chennai Corporation, Chennai 600 003. ... respondents 1 and 2 in all Writ Petitions 3.The Asst. Commissioner, General Department, Corporation of Chennai, Chennai 600 003. ... 3rd respondent in W.P.No.18533/2013
PRAYER: W.P.No.18533 of 2013 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in resolution no.300/2012 dated 24.11.2012 insofar as it directs the conversion of charge under the rule 9(1) into charge under rule 9(2) of the Chennai Corporation Class III and class IV Service (Discipline and Appeal) By-laws 1983 and the order of the 1st respondent in Po.Thu.Na.Ka.No.E2/7684 / 2011 dated 7.6.2013 and the order of the 3rd respondent in Po.Thu.Na.Ka.No. E1/22644/2013 dated 18.6.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 3 to include th ename of the petitioner in the panel of Assistant Accounts Officer for the year 2012-13 and promote the petitioner as Assistant Accounts Officer on par with his immediate junior.
W.P.No.18534 of 2013 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in resolution no.300/2012 dated 24.11.2012 insofar
as it directs the conversion of charge under the rule 9(1) into charge under rule 9(2) of the Chennai Corporation Class III and Class IV Service (Discipline and Appeal) By-laws 1983 and the order of the 1st respondent in Po.Thu.Na.Ka.No.E2/7684/2011 dated 7.6.2013 and quash the same.
W.P.No.18535 of 2013 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in resolution no.300/2012 dated 24.11.2012 insofar as it directs the conversion of charge under the rule 9(1) into charge under rule 9(2) of the Chennai Corporation Class III and Class IV Service (Discipline and Appeal) By-laws 1983 and the order of the 1st respondent in Po.Thu.Na.Ka.No.E2/7684/2011 dated 7.6.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to promote the petitioner as Superintendent on par with his immediate juniors.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 7 June 2013 on the file of Corporation of Chennai, initiating fresh disciplinary proceedings in respect of the very same charges, notwithstanding the culmination of earlier proceedings and punishment undergone by them.
Facts in brief :-
proceedings against the petitioners on the basis of very same charges. The second respondent, pursuant to the resolution, decided to withdraw the earlier charge memo and issued a fresh charge memo on 7 June 2013 under Rule 9(2) of the Chennai Corporation Class III and Class IV Service (Discipline and Appeal) By-laws, 1983. The charge memo dated 7 June 2013 is challenged in this Writ Petition by the individual petitioners.
Discussion :-
Corporation has taken a conscious decision to initiate proceedings only under Rule 9(1) of the Chennai Corporation Class III and Class IV Service (Discipline and Appeal) By-laws, 1983. It is also matter of record that the concerned contractor has paid the entire amount to the Corporation and as such, there is no revenue loss.
17.Rule 8 of TNCS(D&A) Rules contemplates the penalties which may be imposed upon a person who is a member of the civil service. Items (i) to (iii), (v) and (ix), that is to say censure, fine, withholding of increment or promotion and suspension, are considered as minor penalties; whereas Item Nos.(iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii), that is to say reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or to a lower time-scale or compulsory retirement, removal from service or dismissal from service are considered to be major penalties. Rule 17(a) contemplates the procedure relating to imposing of minor penalties, as envisaged under Rule 8(i) to (iii), (v) and (ix); whereas Rule 17(b) contemplates the procedure relating to the imposition of major penalties. Rule 17(c) is only by way of exception to rule 17(b), as apparent from the opening words of Rule 17(c)(i)(1) to the effect that the requirements of sub-rule(b) shall not apply. In other words, a careful and combined reading of all the provisions would make it clear that it is open to the departmental authorities either to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(b) or the procedure contemplated under Rule 17(c). However, when Rule 17(b) has already been followed and a punishment is imposed, it would not be permissible for the departmental authorities to again subject the very same delinquent to a fresh punishment on the self-same allegation on the ground that such conduct has led to his conviction in a criminal case, which, in our considered opinion, would amount to double jeopardy.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a department can initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9(2) for the same charges after the employee has already undergone punishment under Rule 9(1).
Whether initiating proceedings afresh on the same allegations after punishment amounts to double jeopardy.
Whether the quashing of the fresh charge memo and consequent promotion of the petitioners is warranted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
D.Narayanan vs. District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District and othersRelied on¶25
D.Narayanan vs. District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District and others, 2009(4) MLJ 708
2 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Johnson
R.Gangadevi
E.Govindaraji
Corporation of Chennai
K.K.Sasidharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
