IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 9644 of 2004 Between: Sri M.A. H. Subrahmanyam, S/o late Sri.M. Venkateswarlu Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential LIT (LTCD) Junior College, New Nagole, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society rep by Chairman, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 2 The Joint Secretary/Enquiry Officer, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Masab Tank, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the impugned proceedings of the first Respondent bearing Proc. Rc. No. A1/Estt/4664/2001 dated 17-5-2004 and all consequential proceedings based thereon are wholly illegal arbitrary and opposed to principles of natural justice and ultra vires the powers of the first respondent and Consequently declare the same as unenforceable and be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.:MR.VIJAYA BHASKARMOOLA The Court Made the Following: ORDER: Basing on a Daily Newspaper item published on 30.10.1997, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings, dated 06.04.2001, pending enquiry into the charges of irregularities and dereliction of duties against the petitioner. A detailed explanation was filed by the writ petitioner. Having not satisfied with the explanation, a regular domestic enquiry was ordered against the petitioner. After conducting the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer gave a report on 20.12.2002. The disciplinary authority received the proceedings of the Chairman on 18.11.2003 stating that the two charges are held to be proved out of five charges. But, as a matter of fact, the Enquiry Officer gave a categorical finding that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges levelled against him. Now the impugned proceedings have been issued appointing another Enquiry Officer to enquire into the same charges leveled against the petitioner with a direction to submit a report within thirty days. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in respect of the same incident, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report exonerating the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the impugned proceedings appointing another Enquiry Officer are nothing but a double jeopardy. Therefore, he prays to quash the proceedings. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that because earlier Enquiry Officer was in the same cadre of the writ petitioner, the impugned proceedings have been issued. Therefore, the impugned proceedings do not suffer from any legal infirmities. At the request of both the learned counsel, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal. It is not in dispute that by the proceedings of the first respondent-Chairman dated 18.06.2002, a Deputy Secretary was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct domestic enquiry against the writ petitioner with regard to certain allegations. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the disciplinary authority. Though the Enquiry Officer exonerated the writ petitioner on the charges levelled against him in the enquiry, but the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the writ petitioner stating that two charges out of five have been proved. On perusal of the Enquiry Report, it is clear that all the charges levelled against the writ petitioner are not held proved against the writ petitioner. The disciplinary authority can as well differ with the report of the Enquiry Officer and can give a show cause notice proposing punishment, after recording reasons. It is not a case of differing the report of the Enquiry Officer by the disciplinary authority, but there is a case where the appointment of another Enquiry Officer to enquire into the same charges. Though the learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify on the ground that the earlier Enquiry Officer was in the same rank of the writ petitioner, the said fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the matter, the appointment of another Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against him is in respect of the same charges, for which an Enquiry Officer has already submitted his report, it is nothing but double jeopardy. An officer cannot be prosecuted or tried twice for the same offence in the departmental proceedings. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are vitiated for appointing the second Enquiry Officer in respect of the same charges without setting aside the earlier Enquiry Report. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. This order will not preclude the respondents from taking any further action against the writ petitioner as per law. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Copy to: 1 The Chairman, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 2 The Joint Secretary/Enquiry Officer, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 3 2 CD copies Note: Issue copy in three days. B/O YCR