SH JAI CHARAN VERMA S/O SH HUKAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police on 30.3.1968. Three FIRs, namely, FIR No. 398/90 under Section 308/34 IPC dated 23.12.1990, FIR No. 129/93 dated 7.4.1993 and FIR No. 400/2000 dated 12.12.2000 were registered against him. He was dismissed from service by invoking the powers under Article 311(2)(b). Against the aforesaid order of dismissal, he approached the Tribunal by filing OA-475/2004 (Annexure. A/10) and the Tribunal by its order dated 16.8.2004 quashed the order of dismissal and directed that the applicant should be reinstated in service. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the applicant was reinstated in service and retired on 31.1.2005. Meanwhile, a criminal case was registered against the applicant arising from FIR No. 398/90 dated 23.10.1990. It is undisputed that by a common order dated 15.7.2003, a case arising from FIR No. 398/90 and a case arising from FIR No. 129/93 have been disposed of by recording an order of acquittal in favour of the applicant. After the matter was remitted back, the respondent-authorities by order dated 14.7.2003 seem to have disposed of the disciplinary proceedings by imposing the punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently for the purpose of seniority. It is not disputed the fact that the applicant has undergone this punishment. After the applicant's retirement, the respondents have issued summary of allegations concerned in the aforesaid facts arising from FIR No. 398/90, FIR No. 129/93 and FIR No. 400/2000.

(2.) Mrs. P.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has not raised any dispute with regard to the punishment already undergone by the applicant. Since the applicant's two years approved service was forfeited permanently on the basis of FIR No. 398/90 and FIR No. 129/93, therefore, the respondent-authorities cannot impose further punishment relating to those incidents. In the event they impose the penalty, it would amount to jeopardy against the applicant.