Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) The petitioner was recruited as a constable in 1979. In February, 1993 he was posted as a Constable Driver. On 17.3.1993 the petitioner was charge-sheeted on the ground that he was found drunk during duty hours and that in the state of intoxication, he entered the living room of the Commandant Officer unauthorisedly at around 8.30 p.m. and used abusive and unparliamentary language. On the aforesaid charges, an inquiry was conducted and full opportunity was given to the petitioner. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was removed from the service with effect from 15.7.1993. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 30.11.1993 allowed the appeal of the petitioner and quashed the order of the removal of the services of the petitioner as well as the enquiry proceedings and directed the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a de-novo inquiry against the appellant. Based on the directions of the Appellate Authority, a fresh inquiry was conducted and thereafter in April, 1994 a fresh charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply which was not found satisfactory and thereafter an Inquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the inquiry and gave fill opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself Based on the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order of removal on 10.10.1994. The petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected by an order dated 17.5.1995. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition for the quashing of the aforesaid orders.
(2.) Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Aradhana Chauhan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the inquiry had been initiated and the order of removal was set aside, it was no longer open to the Disciplinary Authority to hold a fresh inquiry and remove the petitioner from the service on the same charges. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that having been acquitted, the petitioner should not be removed from the service on the same charges. In support of his submission the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Assam and Anr. v. J.N. Roy Biswas, A.I.R. 1975 SC 2277, in which it was held. "No rule of double jeopardy bars but absence of power under a rule inhibits a second inquiry by the Disciplinary Authority after the delinquent had once been absolved.";