HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.12999 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.07.2011 **** Balbir Singh Saini . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The allegation that the petitioner unauthorisedly withdrawn the fare of Rs.22.50 paise by showing a bogus tour on 04.02.2006 was earlier enquired into by way of preliminary (fact-finding) enquiry and the competent authority, having regard to the fact that the senior officers of the Department and the Gram Panchayats of the nearby villages praised his work, took a lenient view in the matter and dropped the proceedings with a simple warning and advise to the petitioner to perform his duties more carefully in future. An order to this effect was passed on August 20, 2006 (Annexure P2). On the same allegation, the petitioner was served with a fresh regular charge-sheet CWP No.12999 of 2009.doc - 2 – dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure P5) prompting him to approach this Court. (2). The petitioner has meanwhile retired from service w.e.f. 31.08.2010. (3). The respondents maintain that since no formal charge- sheet was earlier served upon the petitioner, the principle akin to double jeopardy cannot be pressed into aid by him. (4). In my considered view, the non-issuance of a formal charge-sheet on the earlier occasion was inconsequential as the parties were fully conscious and aware of the nature of allegation which was the subject matter of the preliminary enquiry and the competent authority imposed one of the prescribed minor punishment, namely, warning and to remain careful in future by passing a reasoned order. (5). That being so, the second charge-sheet on the same set of allegations could not be issued. (6). For the reason afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned charge-sheet dated 22.07.2008 (Annexure P5) is quashed. (7). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 25.07.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 2