Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

However, by the impugned order dated 05.01.2015, the second respondent-Superintending Engineer has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on account of the conviction handed down to the petitioner by the criminal court. It is this order which gave rise to this writ petition. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the very same conduct of the writ petitioner is not faithfully accounting for the revenues of the corporation was viewed and considered as misconduct and consequently disciplinary proceedings were initiated for the alleged misconduct. The said disciplinary proceedings have ended in an order passed on 06.01.2010 imposing the punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, besides treating the period of suspension as extraordinary leave. Therefore, the second respondent has already exhausted the power of disciplinary control for the same acts of misconduct allegedly committed by the writ petitioner and hence, he cannot penalize the writ petitioner by imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, a second time all over. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the same set of misconduct, the petitioner cannot be subjected to disciplinary action twice and by two separate proceedings two different punishments cannot be imposed. Any such action of imposing two different punishments by two different sets of proceedings amounts to double jeopardy, which is opposed to the basic principles of fair play and justice, as enshrined in Article 20 of our Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that the writ petitioner has not been provided with any opportunity whatsoever before imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. Learned counsel would further urge that when once the conduct rules treat conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude by the employees of the first respondent corporation as a major misconduct, then, it is imcumbent that the procedure prescribed for imposing punishment of dismissal from service has got to be faithfully followed. In the instant case, no such procedure has been followed and not even an opportunity of hearing is provided to the writ petitioner before imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.