Madhya Pradesh High Court
B.K. Soni vs Food Corporation Of India on 14 October, 2020
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, Rajeev Kumar Dubey
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(DIVISION BENCH)
HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
WRIT PETITION NO. 3417/2015
B.K. Soni
-Versus-
Food Corporation of India and others
Shri H.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents
Food Corporation of India.
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav, Acting Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Judge.
ORDER
(Jabalpur, dated 14-10-2020) Per : Sanjay Yadav, J.-
Challenge in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to a Circular dated 30.4.2007. Another challenge is to the charge-sheet dated 30.5.2014.
2. The impugned circular dated 30.4.2007 is in fact a Notification No. 97 (No. EP 36 (2)/99 dated 30.4.2007 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary; whereby, the Food Corporation 2 of India in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 45 of the Food Corporation of India Act, 1964 and with previous sanction of the Central Government inserted Regulation 60-A in Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (hereafter shall be referred as "1971 Regulations"), which provided for:
"60-A-Procedure for disciplinary proceedings after retirement:
(i) Any disciplinary proceeding, if instituted by issue of chargesheet while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the retirement of the employee, be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced, in the same manner, as if the employee had continued in service.
(ii) Such proceeding after retirement should be completed expeditiously and within twelve months from the date of delivery of charge sheet to the charged official, subject to Court Orders, if any.
(iii) During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority may withhold payment of gratuity for ordering the recovery from gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation, if the employee is found in a disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of offence or misconduct as mentioned in the relevant Sections of the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972) or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Corporation by misconduct or negligence during his service, 3 including service rendered on deputation or on reemployment after retirement, provided that the provisions of relevant Sections of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 shall be kept in view in the event of delayed payment, in case, the employee is fully exonerated".
3. The challenge to said amendment is mainly on the ground that same violates the statutory provisions contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The issue, however, is no more res integra and has been settled at rest by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Sri Rabindranath Choubey (2020 SCC Online SC 470) decided on 27th May 2020, wherein the Larger Bench while adverting to the issue arising from Rule 34 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, which is pari materia similar to Regulation 60-A of 1971 Regulations has held:
27. It is true that while considering the very provisions of the CDA Rules, namely, Rule 34.2 and Rule 34.3 of the CDA Rules, this Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. [(2007) 1 SCC 663 ] has observed and held that once the employee is permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, thereafter no order of dismissal can be passed. However, for the reasons stated hereinabove, we are not in agreement with the view taken by this Court in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill (supra). As observed hereinabove, if no major 4 penalty is permissible after retirement, even in a case where the disciplinary proceedings were instituted while the employee was in service, in that case, Rule 34.2 would become otiose and shall be meaningless. On the contrary, there is a decision of three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar [(2011) 10 SCC 249] taking just a contrary view.
In the case of Ram Lal Bhaskar (supra), Rule 19(3) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 came up for consideration which was pari materia with Rule 34.2 of the CDA Rules. The said Rule 19(3) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 also permits the disciplinary proceedings to continue even after the retirement of an employee if those were instituted when the delinquent employee was in service. In that case, chargesheet was served upon the respondent before his retirement. The proceedings continued after his retirement and were conducted in accordance with the relevant rules where charges were proved. Punishment of dismissal was imposed. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of dismissal. This Court reversed the said decision of the High Court. In the said decision, it was specifically observed by this Court while considering the pari materia provisions that in case disciplinary proceedings under the relevant rules of service have been initiated against an officer before he ceased to be in the bank's service by the operation of, or by virtue of, any of the rules or the provisions of the Rules, the disciplinary proceedings may, at the discretion of the Managing Director, be continued and concluded by 5 the authority by whom the proceedings were initiated in the manner provided for in the Rules as if the officer continues to be in service, so however, that he shall be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of the continuance and conclusion of such proceedings. In the said decision, this Court also took note of another decision of this Court in the case of UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor [(2007) 6 SCC 694] and it is observed even in the said decision that the UCO Bank Officer Employees' Service Regulations, 1979 which were also pari materia to the SBI Rules as well as the CDA Rules, could be invoked only when the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated prior to the delinquent officer ceased to be in service. It is to be noted that Jaswant Singh Gill (supra) was a judgment delivered by a two Judge Bench and the judgment in the case of Ram Lal Bhaskar (supra) is a judgment delivered by a three Judge Bench. Under the circumstances and even otherwise for the reasons stated above and in view of Rule 34.2 of the CDA Rules, even a retired employee who was permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation can be subjected to major penalty, provided the disciplinary proceedings were initiated while the employee was in service.
28. Once it is held that a major penalty which includes the dismissal from service can be imposed, even after the employee has attained the age of superannuation and/or was permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, provided the disciplinary proceedings were initiated while the employee was in service, sub-
6section 6 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act shall be attracted and the amount of gratuity can be withheld till the disciplinary proceedings are concluded.
29. Even otherwise, Rule 34.3 of the CDA Rules permits withholding of the gratuity amount during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, for ordering recovering from gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the company if have been guilty of offences/misconduct as mentioned in subsection 6 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or to have caused pecuniary loss to the company by misconduct or negligence, during his service. It further makes clear that Rule 34.3 for withholding of such a gratuity would be subject to the provisions of Section 7(3) and 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in the event of delayed payment in the case of an employee who is fully exonerated. Rule 34.3 of the CDA Rules is in consonance with sub-section 6 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and there is no inconsistency between sub- section 6 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act and Rule 34.3 of the CDA Rules. Therefore Section 14 of the Act which has been relied upon shall not be applicable as there is no inconsistency between the two provisions.
30. It is required to be noted that in the present case the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent-employee for very serious allegations of misconduct alleging dishonestly causing coal stock shortages amounting to Rs. 31.65 crores and thereby causing substantial loss to the employer. Therefore, if such a charge is proved and punishment of dismissal is 7 given thereon, the provisions of sub-section 6 of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act would be attracted and it would be within the discretion of the appellant- employer to forfeit the gratuity payable to the respondent. Therefore, the appellant-employer has a right to withhold the payment of gratuity during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings."
4. As to the issue that where departmental enquiry had been instituted against an employee while he was in service and continued after he attained the age of superannuation, whether the punishment of dismissal can be imposed on being found guilty in view of the provisions made in Rule 34.2 of the C.D.A Rules, it is held:
"69. In view of the various decisions, it is apparent that under Rule 34.2 of the CDA Rules inquiry can be held in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service and the appropriate major and minor punishment commensurate to guilt can be imposed including dismissal as provided in Rule 27 of the CDA Rules and apart from that in case pecuniary loss had been caused that can be recovered. Gratuity can be forfeited wholly or partially.
70. Several service benefits would depend upon the outcome of the inquiry, such as concerning the period during which inquiry remained pending. It would be against the public policy to permit an employee to go scot-free after collecting various service benefits to which he would not be entitled, and the event of 8 superannuation cannot come to his rescue and would amount to condonation of guilt. Because of the legal fiction provided under the rules, it can be completed in the same manner as if the employee had remained in service after superannuation, and appropriate punishment can be imposed. Various provisions of the Gratuity Act discussed above do not come in the way of departmental inquiry and as provided in Section 4(6) and Rule 34.3 in case of dismissal gratuity can be forfeited wholly or partially, and the loss can also be recovered. An inquiry can be continued as provided under the relevant service rules as it is not provided in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 that inquiry shall come to an end as soon as the employee attains the age of superannuation. We reiterate that the Act does not deal with the matter of disciplinary inquiry, it contemplates recovery from or forfeiture of gratuity wholly or partially as per misconduct committed and does not deal with punishments to be imposed and does not supersede the Rules 34.2 and 34.3 of the CDA Rules. The mandate of Section 4(6) of recovery of loss provided under Section 4(6)(a) and forfeiture of gratuity wholly or partially under Section 4(6)(b) is furthered by the Rules 34.2 and 34.3. If there cannot be any dismissal after superannuation, intendment of the provisions of Section 4(6) would be defeated. The provisions of section 4(1) and 4(6) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 have to be given purposive interpretation, and no way interdict holding of the departmental inquiry and punishment to be imposed is not the subject matter dealt with under the Act.9
71. Thus considering the provisions of Rules 34.2 and 34.3 of the CDA Rules, the inquiry can be continued given the deeming fiction in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service and appropriate punishment, including that of dismissal can be imposed apart from the forfeiture of the gratuity wholly or partially including the recovery of the pecuniary loss as the case may be.
72. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and in view of the decision of three Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Lal Bhaskar (supra) and our conclusions as above, it is observed and held that (1) the appellant - employer has a right to withhold the gratuity during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, and (2) the disciplinary authority has powers to impose the penalty of dismissal/major penalty upon the respondent even after his attaining the age of superannuation, as the disciplinary proceedings were initiated while the employee was in service.
5. In view whereof the challenge to the validity of Notification dated 30.4.2007 inserting Regulation 60-A in the Regulations 1971 is negatived.
6. Now coming to the challenge to charge-sheet. The record reveals that the petitioner was served with the charge sheet on 29.5.2014; whereby, 7 charges are levelled against the petitioner.
The charges relate to the embezzlement and irregularity committed by the petitioner while he was posted as Assistant 10 Grade-II (Godown). Specific charges levelled against the petitioner are:
vuqPNsn&,d%& Jh ch- ds- lksuh lgk- oxZ nks ¼xksnke½ ds izHkkj esa] ekg vizsy 2012 esa] ,Q,lMh jkeiqj tcyiqj ds 'ksM Ø- 2] ls pkoy ds ,d pÍs dk ifjlekiu fd;k x;k ftlesa Jh lksuh ds }kjk LVsdokbZt jftLVj ,oa Hk- gkfu i=d esa fOdaVy 35-70-375] 1-98% Hk.Mkj.k {kfr n'kkZbZ xbZ FkhA mä izdj.k dh egkizca/kd ¼{ks=½ ds funsZ'kkuqlkj {ks=h; dk;kZy; Hkksiky ,oa ft-dk- tcyiqj ds }kjk iqu% tkap dh xbZ ftlesa Jh ch-ds- lksuh l-o- nks ¼xks½ ds } kjk lEcaf/kr LVsdokbt jftLVj esa {kfr ek+=k dks tkcw>dj de fn[kk;k tkuk ik;k x;kA iqu% tkWp esa mijksä Hk.Mkj.k {kfr ek+=k 35-70-375 ds LFkku ij 38- 69-625] 2-56% fOdaVy ikbZ xbZA vuqPNsn&nks%& Jh ch-ds-lksuh] lgk- oxZ nks ¼xksnke½ ds izHkkj esa] ekg vxLr 2012 esa] ,Q,lMh jkeiqj tcyiqj ds 'ksM Ø- 2 ls pkoy ds pÍksa dk ifjlekiu fd;k x;k ftlesa Jh lksuh ds }kjk Hkjs x, LVsdokbZt jftLVj ,oa Hk- gkfu i=d ds vuqlkj ftyk tkaWp lfefr }kjk 4 pÍksa esa ls 2 pÍksa esa ikbZ xbZ HkaMkj.k {kfr dks vU;k;ksfpr ekuk x;kA mä vlk/kkj.k HkaMkj.k gkfu ds fy, {ks= izc/kd Hkk-[kk-fu- tcyiqj }kjk Kkiu fnukad 23-2-2013 tkjh djus ds i'pkr vkns'k fnukad 02-04-2013 ds varxZr jkf'k :- 16]368@& dh olwyh gsrq 'kkfLr iznku dh xbZ FkhA 11 mä izdj.k dh egkizca/kd ¼{ks=½ ds funsZ'kkuqlkj {ks=h; dk;kZy; Hkksiky dh lfefr ,oa ft-dk-tcyiqj } kjk iqu% tkap dh xbZ ftlesa Jh ch-ds- lksuh] l-o] nks¼xks½ ds }kjk lEcaf/kr LVsdokbt jftLVj esa ntZ dh xbZ vkod@tkod izfrf"V;ksa esa xaHkhj vfu;ferrk dj {kfr ek=k dks tkucw>dj de fn[kk;k tkuk ik;k x;kA iqu% tkWp esa pÍk Ø- 2@B@3A esa Hk- {kfr 29-60- 000]¼1-48%½ ds LFkku ij 100-59-850] ¼5-50%½ ds LFkku ij 100-59-850] ¼5-05%½ ikbZ xbZA vuqPNsn&rhu%& Jh ch-ds- lksuh lgk- oxZ nks ¼xksnke½ ds izHkkj esa] ekg flrEcj 2012 esa] ,Q,lMh jkeiqj tcyiqj ds 'ksM Ø- 2 ls pkoy ds pÍksa dk ifjlekiu fd;k x;k ftlesa Jh lksuh ds }kjk Hkjs x, LVsdokbZt jftLVj ,oa Hk- gkfu i=d ds vuqlkj 3 pÍksa esa 55-12- 000 fOdaVy Hk- {kfr fn[kk;k x;kA bl lanHkZ esa Jh ch-ds- lksuh lgk- oxZ nks ¼xks½ dks mä vlk/kkj.k HkaMkj.k gkfu ds fy;s {ks= izca/kd Hkk- [kk- fu- tcyiqj }kjk fofu&60 ds varxZr Kkiu fnukad 06-02-2014 tkjh djus ds i'pkr vkns'k fnukad 28-04-2014 ds varxZr 25% jkf'k :- 4]440@& dh olwyh] gsrq 'kkfLr iznku dh xbZ FkhA mä izdj.k dh egkizac/kd ¼{ks=½ ds funsZ'kkuqlkj {ks=h; dk;kZy; Hkksiky dh lfefr ,oa ft-dk- tcyiqj }kjk iqu% tkap dh xbZ ftlesa Jh ch-ds- lksuh l-o- nks ¼xks½ ds }kjk lEcaf/kr LVsdokbt jftLVj esa ntZ dh xbZ vkod@tkod izfof"V;ksa esa xaHkhj vfu;ferrk dj {kfr ek=k dks tkucw>dj de fn[kk;k tkuk ik;k x;kA iqu% tkWp esa mijksä {kfr ek=k 55-12- 000 ds LFkku ij 65-12-000 fOdaVy ikbZ xbZA pÍk Ø- 2@A@2 esa Hk- {kfr fOdaVy 26-40-000] 1-25% ds LFkku ij 36-40-080 1-72% ikbZ xbZA 12 vuqPNsn&pkj%& Jh ch-ds- lksuh] lgk] oxZ nks ¼xksnke½ ds izHkkj esa] ekg vDVwcj 2012 esa] ,Q,lMh jkeiqj tcyiqj ds 'ksM+ Ø- 2] ls pkoy ds pÍksa dk ifjlekiu fd;k x;k ftlesa Jh lksuh }kjk Hkjs x, LVsdokbZt jftLVj ,oa Hk- gkfu i=d ds vuqlkj pÍk Ø- 2@ A@4 esa 6-10- 000 fOdaVy ¼0-28%½ Hk- {kfr fn[kk;k x;k FkkA mä izdj.k dh egkizca/kd ¼{ks=½ ds funsZ'kkuqlkj {ks=h; dk;kZy; Hkksiky dh lfefr ,oa ft- dk- tcyiqj }kjk iqu% tkap dh xbZ ftlesa Jh ch- ds- lksuh] l-o- nks ¼xks½ ds }kjk lEcaf/kr LVsdokbt jftLVj esa ntZ dh xbZ vkod@tkod izfof"V;ksa esa xaHkhj vfu;ferrk dj {kfr ek=k dks tkucw>dj de fn[kk;k tkuk ik;k x;kA iqu% tkWp esa pÍk Ø- 2@A@4 esa 6-10-000 fOdaVy ¼0- 28%½ ds LFkku ij 106-00-000 fOdaVy ¼5-03%½ ikbZ xbZA vuqPNsn&ikap%& Jh ch-ds- lksuh lgk- oxZ nks¼xksnke½ ds izHkkj esa] ekg uoEcj 2012 esa] ,Q,lMh jkeiqj tcyiqj ds 'ksM+ Ø- 2] ls pkoy ds pÍksa dk ifjlekiu fd;k x;k ftlesa Jh lksuh ds }kjk Hkjs x, LVsdokbZt jftLVj ,oa Hk- gkfu i=d ds vuqlkj pÍk Ø-2@ch@5 38-42-000 fOdaVy] 1-43% Hk- {kfr Hk- {kfr n'kkZbZ xbZ FkhA mä izdj.k dh egkizca/kd ¼{ks=½ ds funsZ'kkuqlkj {ks=h; dk;kZy; Hkksiy dh lfefr ,oa ft- dk- tcyiqj }kjk iqu% tkap dh xbZ ftlesa Jh ch-ds- lksuh] l-o- nks ¼xks½ ds }kjk lEcaf/kr LVsdokbt jftLVj esa ntZ dh xbZ vkod@tkod izfrof"V;ksa esa xaHkhj vfu;ferrk dj {kfr ek=k dks tkucw>dj de fn[kk;k tkuk ik;k x;kA iqu% tkWp esa Hk- {kfr fOdaVy 38-42- 13 000] 1-43% ds LFkku ij fOdaVy 78-41-175] 2-93% ikbZ xbZA vuqPNsn&N% %& Jh ch- ds- lksuh] lgk] oxZ nks ¼xksnke½ ds izHkkj esa] ekg tuojh 2013 eas] ,Q,lMh jkeiqj tcyiqj ds 'ksM+ Ø- 2 ls pkoy ds pÍksa dk ifjlekiu fd;k x;k ftlesa Jh lksuh ds }kjk Hkjs x, LVsdokbZt jftLVj ,oa Hk- gkfu i=d ds vuqlkj pÍk Ø- 2@C@9A esa fOdaVy 6-80-000] 0-376% Hk- {kfr fn[kk;k x;kA mä Hk- {kfr izdj.k dh egkizca/kd ¼{ks+=½ ds funsZ'kkuqlkj {ks=h; dk;kZy; Hkksiky dh lfefr ,oa ft- dk- tcyiqj }kjk iqu% tkap dh xbZ ftlesa Jh ch-ds- lksuh] l-o- nks ¼xks½ ds }kjk lEcaf/kr LVsdokbt jftLVj esa ntZ dh xbZ vkod@tkod izfrf"V;ksa esa xaHkhj vfu;ferrk dj {kfr ek=k dks tkucw>dj de fn[kk;k tkuk ik;k x;kA iqu% tkWp esa mijksä {kfr ek=k fOdaVy 6-80-000 0-376% ds LFkku ij fOdaVy 60-91-435] 2-03% ikbZ xbZA vuqPNsn&lkr %& Jh ch- ds- lksuh lgk- oxZ nks ¼xksnke½ ds izHkkj esa] ekg ekpZ 2013 esa] ,Q,lMh jkeiqj tcyiqj ds 'ksM Ø- 2] ls pkoy ds pÍksa dk ifjlekiu fd;k x;k ftlesa Jh lksuh] ds }kjk Hkjs x, LVsdokbZt jftLVj ,oa Hk- gkfu i=d ds vuqlkj pÍk Ø- 2@C@2 eas fOdaVy 3-75-000 0-19% Hk-{kfr fn[kk;k x;kA mä Hk- {kfr izdj.kksa dh egkizca/kd ¼{ks=½ ds funsZ'kkuqlkj {ks=h; dk;kZy; Hkksiky dh lfefr ,oa ft- dk- tcyiqj }kjk iqu% tkap dh xbZ ftleas Jh ch-ds- lksuh] l-o- nks ¼xks½ ds }kjk lEcaf/kr LVsdokbt 14 jftLVj esa ntZ dh xbZ vkod@tkod izfrof"V;ksa esa xaHkhj vfu;ferrk dj {kfr ek=k dks tkucw>dj de fn[kk;k tkuk ik;k x;kA iqu% tkWp esa pÍk Ø- 2@C@2 dh {kfr ek=k fOdaVy 3-75-000] 0-19% ds LFkku ij 141-28-660] 7-5% ikbZ xbZ gSA mijksä izdj.kksa esa Jh ch-ds- lksuh] lgk- oxZ nks ¼xksnke½ ds }kjk ,Q,lMh jkeiqj tcyiqj esa 'ksM+ ua- 02 ds izHkkjh jgus ds nkSjku HkaMkj.k gkfu dks tkucw>dj de n'kkZus dk iz;kl fd;k ,oa okLrfod HkaMkj.k {kfr dks fNikdj lacaf/kr vfHkys[k@i=dksa esa de {kfr fn[kkdj lR; ls xqejkg djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;kA bl izdkj Jh ch-ds- lksuh] lgk-oxZ nks ¼xksnke½ izHkkjh 'ksM Ø- 2] }kjk mijksä HkaMkj.k {kfr ds izdj.kksa esa tkucw> dj dh xbZ ykijokgh@gsjkQsjh ls vR;f/kd ,oa vU;k;k;ksfpr Hk.Mkj.k {kfr fn[kkdj fuxe dks :- 11]54]297-70 ¼:i, X;kjg yk[k pkSou gtkj nks lkS lÙkkuos ,oa lÙkj iSls ek=½ dh vfFkZd {kfr igqapkbZ xbZ ftlds fy, os iw.kZr% ftEesnkj gSaA mijksä d``R; ls ;g LFkkfir gksrk gS fd dfFkr Jh ch-ds- lksuh] lgk- oxZ nks ¼xksnke½ izHkkjh 'ksM Ø- 2 jkeiqj tcyiqj ds }kjk tkucw>dj drZO; fuoZgu esa ykijokgh@gsjkQsjh dk izn'kZu djrs gq, Lo;a ds ykHk ds fy, gsjkQsjh ls Hkk- [kk- fu- dks vkfFkZd {kfr igq¡pkdj xaHkhj dnkpkj fd;k x;k rFkk ,slk O;ogkj fd;k x;k tks ,d fuxe dehZ dks 'kksHkk ugha nsrk] vkSj bl izdkj mUgksaus Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe ¼deZpkjh o``an½ fofu;e 1971 ds fofu;e 31] 32 ,oa 32 , ¼81 oka la'kks/ku o"kZ 82½ dk mYya?ku fd;k gSA
7. The petitioner has confined his challenge to quashment of charge Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that in respect of the loss incurred, the petitioner has already been punished and the relative 15 amount of loss has been recovered from the petitioner. It is urged imposing same charge tantamounts to dual jeopardy and review of earlier order of punishment, which in given facts is not permissible.
8. The respondents, however, contradict the contention that the petitioner has been subjected to dual jeopardy. It is also denied that earlier punishment has been reviewed.
9. Considered the rival submissions.
10. Careful reading of charges Nos. 2 and 3 would reveal that it is in two parts. The first part states the recovery made in respect of the shortages found in two rice stacks on physical verification.
Whereas the second part for which the petitioner is charge-
sheeted is the misconduct of the petitioner while causing entry in the stock register. Evidently, it is in respect of the misconduct of the petitioner qua maintaining the stock register which is subject matter of charge Nos. 2 and 3 and is not in respect of a recovery.
Therefore, the contention that the petitioner is visited with the charge-sheet in respect of misconduct for which the recovery has already been effected is not substantiated.
1611. In view whereof since the contention that the petitioner is subjected to dual jeopardy is not substantiated, we decline to interfere with the impugned charge-sheet.
12. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. The interim order dated 21.4.2015 is vacated. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
vivek
Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR
TRIPATHI
Date: 2020.10.20 16:45:30 +05'30'