- (1.) SABHAJEET Yadav, J. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20. 11. 2006 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration) Trade Tax, Lucknow contained in Annexure-1 of the writ petition, whereby while working as Senior clerk in the office of Assistant Commissioner (Administration) Trade Tax, Etah the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry against him.
(2.) THE aforesaid order of suspension was initially challenged on various grounds including that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are vague and it is based on non application of mind but by filing supplementary affidavit in the writ petition the petitioner has stated that in respect of the same charges the petitioner was given adverse entry by Assistant Commissioner (Administration) Trade Tax, Etah, whereby his integrity was also held doubtful for the period from 12. 8. 2005 to 31. 3. 2006. A copy of the aforesaid adverse entry communicated to the petitioner enclosed as Annexure SA-1 to supplementary affidavit. On communication of the said adverse entry the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Joint Commissioner, Executive Trade Tax, Aligarh Region, Aligarh on 18. 11. 2006 and same is still pending before the competent authority. Meanwhile the order of suspension of the petitioner has been passed by respondent no. 3 on the same cause of action grounded on same facts. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State Government wherein the averments made in various paragraphs of the writ petition have been refuted and disputed. The pertinent averments contained in paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit sworn by Sri A. K. Yadav Trade Tax Officer, Etah are extracted as under:- "7. That the contents of para 6 of the writ petition are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the petitioner has unblemished service record. In fact, adverse entries were given to him in the year 1979- 80, 80-81, 81-82, 83-84 which was consequently expunged after considering his representation. However, the petitioner was given adverse entires in the year 1985-86, 94-95. In the year 1980 also, strict warning was given to him, which was recorded in his service record. For the year 2005-06, adverse entry was recorded in his service record and his integrity was also found to be doubtful. 8. That the contents of para 7 of the writ petition are absolutely false and are denied. It is denied that the petitioner performed his duties with integrity and professionalism. In fact, his integrity was doubted and same was recorded in the annual entry for the year 2005-06. 10. That the contents of para 9 of the writ petition are false and are denied. However, in reply it may be stated that in the preliminary enquiry, number of irregularities and manipulations done by the petitioner were found, which resulted in loss of revenue to the State. The misconduct of the petitioner included forging of signature of Higher Authorities in Import Declaration Form (Form-31), removal of original copies from the records and also forging the signatures of record keeper. For ready reference, the copy of preliminary enquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (Works), Trade Tax, Aligarh is being filed herewith as Annexure CA-1 of this affidavit. 13. That the contents of para 14 of the writ petition are absolutely wrong and are denied. However, in reply it may be stated that there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the suspension order and the suspension order was passed to avoid further loss of revenue to the Government. It is further stated that the charge sheet is being prepared against the petitioner and same shall be given to him soon and the departmental enquiry will proceed in accordance with law. 14. That the contents of para 15 of the writ petition are misconceived legal plea and shall be effectively replied at the time of hearing of the case. However, in reply it may be stated that there is no violation of Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the order of suspension was passed after looking into gravity of charges and financial loss caused to the department. " Heard Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State respondents.
(3.) THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in nutshell is that once the petitioner has been given an adverse entry in his annual confidential report for the year 2005-06 on the basis of appraisal of works and conduct almost on the same charge as contained in the impugned order of suspension, it is not permissible under law to proceed with disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner on the same charges grounded on same facts or same cause of action, as it would amount to double punishment or double jeopardy on the same cause of action grounded on almost on same set of facts. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgement of Calcutta High Court rendered between Purnendu Narayan Chakraborty and the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of High Court decided on 15th June, 1989 and another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Lt. Governor, Delhi and others Vs. H. C. Narinder Singh (2004) 13 SCC 342. For appreciation of question in controversy involved in the case, it would be appropriate to extract the adverse entry given in annual confidential report of the petitioner for the year 2005-06 as under:-;