Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2273/2004 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2273 of 2004
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
UNION
OF INDIA & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
R.P.JADEJA
S/O.PRABHATSINH JADEJA - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MS RV ACHARYA for Petitioner(s)
: 1 - 3.MR JITENDRA MALKAN for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR JA ADESHRA
for Respondent(s) : 1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 31/03/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We
have heard Ms. R V Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr J A Adeshra, learned counsel for the respondent. This petition
has been filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 7.2.2003 passed in O.A. No.115 of 2002.
The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was working as
Inspector of the Central Excise and Customs under respondent No.3 He
was served with a charge sheet on 5.12.1994 under Rule 14 of the
Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 and after departmental
proceedings, he was dismissed from service on 7.10.1997. The
petitioners filed appeal which was allowed by the Appellate Officer
on 24.8.1998. The respondent was directed to be reinstated in service
with reduction of pay for two stages for a period of four years with
effect from 8.10.1997. The respondent had already suffered the
punishment imposed by order dated 24.8.1998. After the punishment was
undergone by the respondent, the petitioner passed order dated
24.12.2001 for holding de-novo inquiry against the respondent. This
order was challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal. The
Tribunal, by judgment dated 7.2.2003, set aside the order for
holding fresh inquiry dated 24.12.2001. This order dated 7.2.2003
is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.
2.
It could be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner had served out the penalty imposed on him by order
dated 24.8.1998. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly set aside
the order passed by the petitioner and directed to hold de-novo
inquiry. The respondent cannot be punished twice on the same
charges. The view taken by the Tribunal is perfectly just and
legal. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the
Tribunal.
3. In
the result, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
[V
M SAHAI, J.]
[G
B SHAH, J.]
msp
Top