1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 397 OF 1997 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.585 OF 2007 Shrinivasan Ranganathan ].. Petitioner versus 1. Air India Limited ] having its office at Old Airport, ] Kalina, Santacruz (East), ] Bombay – 400 029 ] ] 2 Addl. General Manager-Engg (C.O.D.) ] Air India Limited, Santacruz ] Old Airport, Kalina, Santacruz(E) ] Bombay 400 029 ].. Respondents. Mr. P K Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Jaishree Surati i/by S K Shrivastava & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. S K Talsania, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Abhay Kulkarni for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : J N PATEL & C L PANGARKAR, J DATED : 9th March 2010 JUDGMENT [PER C L PANGARKAR, J] 1. By this writ petition, the Petitioner challenges his termination of services by the Respondents by an order dated 20-02-1997. 2 2. The facts giving rise to this Petition, in brief, can be narrated as follows :- The Respondents had advertised a post of Aircraft Technician. Some of the posts were reserved for scheduled caste and scheduled tribes candidates. Claiming himself to be a member of scheduled caste, the Petitioner had applied for the same post. He accordingly was selected in the reserved category of scheduled caste. 3. The Petitioner had also submitted a caste certificate claiming himself to be belonging to Konda Reddis caste which is recognized as a scheduled caste. Later it was found that the Petitioner did not belong to the said caste. The Petitioner was therefore called upon to explain as to how he had applied against the post reserved for the scheduled caste. His explanation was not found to be satisfactory. A departmental enquiry was therefore instituted against him in 1984. The Petitioner pleaded guilty. Penalty of reduction of pay was imposed on him. Subsequent to that the Respondents terminated the services of the Petitioner by 3 an order dated 20-02-1997. 4. The contention of the Respondents is that the Petitioner had given false information and had submitted a false caste certificate and as per Presidential directive his services were liable to be terminated and they were so terminated. 5. We have heard Shri Dhakephalkrar, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and, Shri Talsania, the learned senior counsel for the Respondents. 6. Following admitted and undisputed facts would reduce the scope of controversy. The Respondents had advertised a post of Aircraft Technician. Some of the posts were reserved for the scheduled caste candidates. The Petitioner had applied against the said reserved posts claiming himself to be belonging to Konda Reddis caste which is recognized as scheduled caste. He was selected and appointed against a reserved category. Later it was found that his school leaving certificate did not match with the 4 caste certificate produced by him. Explanation of the Petitioner was called for. Since no satisfactory explanation was tendered by the Petitioner, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him for submitting false information and false caste certificate. During the course of enquiry, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges levelled against him. He did so voluntarily. On the basis of his categorical admissions, he was held guilty and on 17-05-1984 a penalty of reduction in pay was imposed upon him. The relevant portion of the said order dated 17-05-1984 reads thus :- “Reduction in the basic pay of Rs.425/- per month in the salary grade of 425-25-600-30-750-40-910 with effect from 1.6.1984. This reduction will operate to postpone your all future increments. Accordingly you will draw the basic salary of Rs.425/- per month with effect from 1.6.84, and in future, you will draw increments in June every year.” After this penalty was imposed, the second order i.e. impugned order dated 20-02-1997 terminating the services of the Petitioner was passed. With these admitted facts it is to be seen, if the order 5 impugned can be sustained. 7. Shri Dhakephalkar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner challenges the impugned order mainly on two counts. First, the second order is passed without giving any show cause notice or without holding any enquiry and secondly the impugned order is bad due to principle of double jeopardy. 8. We shall take up the second ground first. As stated earlier the main charge against the Petitioner is that he tendered a false caste certificate claiming himself to be belonging to the scheduled caste though he did not and does not belong to the scheduled caste and secondly he secured the employment against the reserved post. A Departmental Enquiry was held against the Petitioner and the charges levelled against him in the said charge- sheet were as under :- “You are, therefore, charged with the following :- 1 “Furnishing wrong information regarding your Community at the time of joining Air- India. 6 2 Breach of Clause xviii of Para 1 of offer Letter No.RMD/10298 dt. 18.1.1980 which has been accepted by you. 3 Violations of provisions of Para 13 of the President’s Directive 1975 in regard to fake Caste/Tribe status.” Thus the Petitioner was charged for having submitted false information as regards his caste and had also submitted a false caste certificate. During the course of enquiry he categorically admitted the charges and the charges were then held to be proved. He was penalised for the said misconduct by imposing penalty of reduction in pay. We have already referred to the said order of imposing penalty on the Petitioner in 1984. 9. Now if the second notice of termination is also seen, the said notice is precisely based on the very same charges. Therefore, the Petitioner was sought to be penalised for the same charges twice. In the circumstances we find that this is a case 7 governed by principle of double jeopardy enunciated under Article 20 of the Constitution of India. The said Article reads as follows :- “Art.20. (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” No person can be therefore penalised for the same lapse or misconduct. 10. Shri Talsania, the learned senior counsel for the Respondents tried to justify the action of the Respondents on the 8 ground that action was taken against the Petitioner because he had committed a breach of Presidential directive. He contends that the services of an employee securing an employment on false caste claim need to be necessarily terminated under the Presidential directive. If the Presidential directive says so, the Respondents were at liberty to impose a penalty of termination in stead of a flee bite penalty of reduction of pay. Once having imposed a penalty, the Respondents have no right to impose a penalty once again for the very same misconduct. The same would therefore be contrary to the principle of underlying Article 20 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained at all. Our view is supported by the decision of this Court reported in 2001 II CLR 444 in the case of Laxman Shriyan v. Air India Ltd., Bombay & ors. The Court has observed as under :- “The impugned order is in respect of the same alleged offences on the part of Respondent No.1 for which Respondent had already taken action and implemented the same. Merely because the Presidential directive was issued subsequently to the effect that if verification 9 reveals that his claim that he belongs to SC/ST is false, the services of an employee will be terminated forthwith without assigning any further reasons can be no justification for imposing a further penalty in respect of an offence which has already been dealt with.” 11. We therefore do not propose to consider the second ground since we find that the Petitioner must succeed for the above reasons. Hence the Petition is allowed. The order impugned is quashed and set aside. The Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. 12. In view of the fact that the Petition is decided finally, the Notice of Motion No.585 of 2007 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. sd/- (J N Patel, J) sd/- (C L Pangarkar, J)