AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, who was a revenue Karamchari, was proceeded departmentally for the charge that without prior permission of the competent authority, he purchased and sold the lands, which was against the conduct of a Government Servant. After the charges were proved, the Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 15/02/1985 inflicted punishment of 'censor' as well as stoppage of three annual increments. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner, was communicated to the petitioner by Annexure -1 vide memo dated 18/03/1985.
(2.) IT appears that during the pendency of the appeal one another departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 04/09/1990, in which seven charges were made against him. Out of the seven charges, five charges were the same for which the petitioner have already been proceeded departmentally but rest two charges were new and different. After conclusion of the second departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, on the basis of which the Deputy Commissioner, vide memo No. 1607 dated 29/11/1991, passed the following orders: (i) Revocation of suspension. (ii) For the suspension period, he would get only the substance allowance. Against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner, who modified the order of the Deputy Commissioner to the extent that the petitioner would get his pay, D.A. etc. for the period of suspension.
(3.) THE petitioner raised grievance before the Deputy Commissioner that for the same charges, he was punished twice. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order contained in Annexure -4 dated 14/08/1996, held that in the first departmental proceeding, the petitioner was punished for five charges, whereas in the second departmental proceeding though there were seven charges against him and, therefore, for those five charges, which were the same as that of the first proceeding and, as such, the petitioner was proceeded for those five charges but in the second departmental proceeding punishment was given to him for the two fresh charges which was not the subject matter of the first enquiry. The punishment inflicted in the second departmental proceeding was modified by the Commissioner in appeal and, therefore, in fact, the petitioner was given punishment only in the first departmental proceeding. Considering those facts the application filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner was rejected as contained in Annexure -4.;