(1) Narayan Singh Sandu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3919/2006. (Narayan Singh Sandu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) DATE OF ORDER : August 14, 2008 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas _______________________________ Mr. R.K. Charan/Mr. B.S. Charan for petitioner. Mr. O.P. Boob, Addl. Govt. Counsel. BY THE COURT : The petitioner is challenging the validity of charge-sheet dated 08.02.2006, Annex.-5 to the writ petition, on the ground that for the same charge an inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short, hereinafter to be called “the CCA Rules”) was conducted earlier and after due inquiry in respect of that very charge, which has again been levelled now, the petitioner was penalized with the punishment of censure. Learned counsel for (2) Narayan Singh Sandu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others the petitioner placed on record order passed in the earlier inquiry dated 27.06.2002. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are well aware of the fact that the petitioner was charge-sheeted earlier under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules for the very same charge which is now levelled against the petitioner vide fresh charge-sheet dated 08.02.2006, therefore, the respondents cannot initiate second inquiry for the same charge levelled against the petitioner earlier in which proceedings he was penalized with the penalty of censure. It is therefore contended that in that view of the matter charge-sheet Annex.-5 deserves to be quashed. In the reply to the writ petition, at para 8, it is submitted that the Department had given charge-sheet to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules earlier and, in the meantime, complaint was also registered with the A.C.B. and complete investigation was made in the matter by the A.C.B. Upon completion of the investigation, the A.C.B. found the case made out against the petitioner and accordingly sought prosecution sanction from the Department vide letter dated 27.01.2005. According to the reply of the respondents, the matter was thereafter examined in detail at the higher level and discussed (3) Narayan Singh Sandu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others with the A.C.B. authorities. It was however decided that instead of giving prosecution sanction, re-inquiry be made against the petitioner and thus vide letter dated 23.06.2005 record was called from the A.C.B. to conduct inquiry against the petitioner afresh. Therefore, the subsequent charge-sheet has been issued after completion of the investigation by the A.C.B. and it is felt necessary by the Department to initiate fresh inquiry against the petitioner. It is thus evident from the reply of the respondents that the respondents admit that earlier for the same charge the petitioner was charge-sheeted and after completion of that inquiry he was penalized with the penalty of censure. In para 5 of the reply the respondents have admitterd the fact that vide Annex.-3 the petitioner was penalized with the penalty of censure. The case of the petitioner is that his review petition before His Excellency the Governor under Rule 34 is still pending against the penalty of censure inflicted upon him vide punishment order dated 27.06.2002. Be that as it may, in my considered opinion, once upon completion of the investigation into the matter by the A.C.B. the Department took the decision not to give prosecution sanction, (4) Narayan Singh Sandu Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others then, in that event, it was not open to the Department to initiate fresh inquiry against the petitioner for the very charge in respect of which earlier the petitioner had been charge-sheeted and, after completion of the inquiry, penalized with the punishment of censure. After infliction of the punishment by the Disciplinary Authority, it is not permissible under the law to initiate re-inquiry in respect of that very same charge. It is however made clear that review petition of the petitioner is still pending in which, of course, there is power conferred upon the State Government to take decision for review of the earlier inquiry; but, fresh charge-sheet in respect of the very same charge for which inquiry has already been concluded and the delinquent employees has already been punished is not permissible. In this view of the matter, the subsequent charge- sheet Annex.-5 deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Charge-sheet dated 08.02.2006, Annex.-5 to the writ petition is quashed. There shall however be no order as to costs. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.