127. Knowledge Spectrum – Discipline Charge Sheet - 43
118. Can more than one charge sheet be issued to the same employee in respect of the same misconduct?
Can a charge sheet be issued in respect of a misconduct for which an Facts in Mukesh Ali Vs.State of Assam and Anr.[ JT2006(6)SC111, (2006)5SCC485, [2006]Supp(3)SCR228] were that a charge sheet was served on the Appellant on 29.7.1997. The Enquiry Officer, after concluding the enquiry, submitted his Report along with enclosures wherein it was found that the appellant was not guilty of the alleged offence. The report was submitted on 25.4.2000. On 1.11.2000, proceedings the appellant from 16.9.1994 to 12.12.1994 be treated as on duty. Administrative authorities issued a show cause notice to the appellant on 20.10.2010, for re opening the earlier proceedings, purportedly based on a direction dated 12.5.2001, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Clarifying that its directions dated 12.5.2001 was prospective in nature and did not cover the case of the appellant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"8. ........ Hence, in our view, the learned single Judge and the learned Judges of the Division Bench completely misinterpreted and misread paragraphs 27 and 12 of the orders dated 15.1.1998 and 12.5.2001 respectively passed in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995 in coming to the conclusion that the case of the appellant was covered by the aforesaid two orders of this Court. The findings of the High Court, if followed, would create a chaos as it would mean that by virtue of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court all departmental proceedings concluded in the past would become liable to be opened as that would never have been intended by this Court.
XXX
10. This Court also did not intend to give retrospective operation of the two orders passed by it referred to in paragraphs supra and, therefore, the adequacy of the action taken cannot be a reason for reopening the concluded issue. This Court's directions were not intended to allow the State Government to reopen all or any proceeding which was logically concluded by accepting the enquiry report in which the State- respondents gave warning just cautioning to be careful in future as no direct guilt or wrong was attributed to the appellant by the enquiry officer. Hence, in our view, the order dated 1.11.2000 dropping the proceedings by the Government cannot be termed as letting the appellant off for any reason or any account of any laxity or lapse in the enquiry proceedings.
119. What is the base material in preparing the Charge sheet?
investigation report. Bulk of the material forming part of Annexure - Il of the Charge Sheet can be taken from the Preliminary Investigation Report.
120. What is the 'Charge – Fact - Evidence' co-relation?
A Charge emerges from a set of facts and the facts rest on evidence. For example, the charge of submission of a false LTC Claim, may emerge from the following facts:
(a) The employee applied for leave
b) There was a mention in the leave application about the intention of availing LTC for self and family There was a request for grant of advance
Advance amounting to Xxx was granted to the employee (e) The employee availed leave () The employee on joining after leave, submitted a LTC Claim That on verification of ticket from the Railway it was revealed that the (a) cancelled a few days before the journey.
The above facts will rest on the following evidence:
(a) Leave application wherein the employee had mentioned his intention to avail LTC (b) Application for sanction of advance
Order sanctioning LTC Advance Evidence in support of the fact that advance was availed by the employee Claim made by the employee containing the disputed PNR number
Intimation from the railway authorities to the effect that the ticket having the disputed PNR number was cancelled a few days before the journey.
Post a Comment