the quantum of punishment. That being the case, the submission being advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents having cancelled the charge-sheet issued under rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, could not try the petitioner subsequently on the same charges, is wholly misconceived and unfounded. Be that as it may, even otherwise, the grievance being made on this score does not advance the case of the petitioner a bit. Undoubtedly, a charge-sheet under rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued on 14.05.2001. This is also true that vide order dated 18.05.2001, the Disciplinary Authority cancelled the said charge-sheet on a precise ground that the same was wrongly issued on a proforma for issuing the charge-sheet under rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is equally true that the said cancellation was without prejudice to further action to be considered. What transpires from the record, in this limited context, is clear. Although, an action was contemplated against the petitioner under rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, but by an inadvertent mistake a charge-sheet was issued under rule 16 of the Rules. Having realised so, the said charge-sheet dated 14.05.2001, was cancelled without prejudice to the further action and thus, the charge-sheet under rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 followed.
