'Double Jeopardy': Rajasthan High Court Quashes Second Chargesheet Against Retd Govt Employee On Same Facts Despite Closure Of Earlier Case
Rajasthan High Court set aside a charge sheet issued against a retired employee for same charges in relation to which disciplinary proceedings were already dropped against him in 1991, followed by his acquittal from the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“the Act”) in 2000.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that in absence of any specific power to...
Rajasthan High Court set aside a charge sheet issued against a retired employee for same charges in relation to which disciplinary proceedings were already dropped against him in 1991, followed by his acquittal from the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“the Act”) in 2000.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that in absence of any specific power to review, revise or re-initiate the matter in second enquiry, once a disciplinary enquiry was closed or dropped against the delinquent employee, the matter came to an end, and the disciplinary authority could not restore the same.
Referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court including Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors. Vs. HC Narinder Singh (2004) the high court said, "Issuing of second charge-sheet on the same set of facts is impermissible, as the same is hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and amounts to double jeopardy".
The Court held that in absence of such legal provision, second enquiry amounted to double jeopardy and was hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
Criminal case was filed against the petitioner for misappropriate of an amount for which a departmental action was initiated against him. During this, he was asked to deposit the amount in question, which was adhered to, and consequently, the departmental inquiry was dropped against him in 1991. Subsequently, he was also acquitted by the court in 2000.
However, after a lapse of more than a decade, during which the petitioner also retired, a subsequent charge sheet was issued against him for same allegation, and his retiral benefits were also withheld. Hence, the petition was filed.
The Court held that the State's action amounts to double jeopardy as there was no good reason available with them to issue the subsequent charge sheet, on the same set of charges, when the matter was dropped earlier.
“…there is no Rule to indicate that the second enquiry on the same charges could again be initiated against the petitioner. Once all the similar charges were dropped by the respondents, the respondents were not justified and competent to initiate the second enquiry, on the basis of second charge-sheet issued on the same charges.”
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the charge sheet was quashed. The court directed the State to release the retiral dues of the petitioner with an interest at the rate of 9%.
Title: Durga Lal Verma v District Collector, Tonk
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 338