- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lt. Governor, Delhi And Others v. Hc Narinder Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
Narinder Singh joined the Delhi Police as a constable on 22-12-1982 and was later promoted out of turn under Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police Promotion and Confirmation Rules, 1980 for outstanding devotion to duty. In 1990, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for dereliction of duty, resulting in a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage without cumulative effect; his departmental appeal was dismissed. On 08-01-1992 the appointing authority issued a second show-cause notice proposing to remove his name from the promotion list prepared under the same Rules. Aggrieved, Singh approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the notice on the ground that it constituted a second punishment for the same misconduct. The Delhi Administration appealed the Tribunal’s decision, leading to the present judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether issuance of a second show-cause notice proposing removal from the promotion list—based on the same misconduct for which a disciplinary penalty had already been imposed—constitutes impermissible double punishment (double jeopardy).
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the second show-cause notice appeared to be a continuation of the earlier departmental proceedings because it relied on the same allegation—“lack of devotion to duty.” Imposing a further adverse action (removal from the promotion list or reversion) on the very ground for which the respondent had already been penalized would, in the Court’s view, amount to “double jeopardy,” i.e., punishing an employee twice for the same cause. Accepting the Tribunal’s reasoning, the Court held that such duplicative action could not stand. It expressly declined to pronounce on the wider ambit or interpretation of any rule, confining its decision to the impropriety of a second penalty for the same misconduct.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed. The Tribunal’s order quashing the second show-cause notice is affirmed. As a result, Narinder Singh’s name cannot be removed from the promotion list on the basis of the previously adjudicated misconduct. The judgment provides relief only to the respondent and does not articulate any new precedent beyond reaffirming the prohibition against double punishment for the same offence.
Order
1. Head Constable Narinder Singh, for short the respondent, was appointed a constable in the Delhi Police on 22-12-1982. He was promoted out of turn under Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police Promotion and Confirmation Rules, 1980 for showing outstanding devotion to duty. Subsequently, in the year 1990 disciplinary action was initiated against him for dereliction of duty which culminated in the imposition of penalty of reduction of pay by one stage without cumulative effect. Appeal against the said order was dismissed. Thereafter, the appointing authority issued a second show-cause notice on 8-1-1992 proposing to remove his name from the promotion list to which he was brought under the above Rules.
2. Aggrieved by the proposed action the respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, for short the Tribunal, seeking quashing of the show-cause notice. The Tribunal allowed the petition and held that second show-cause notice would amount to double punishment based on the same cause of action and accordingly quashed the show-cause notice. The Delhi Administration has come up in the appeal.
3. Counsel for the parties have been heard.
4. Reading of the show-cause notice suggests as if it is in continuation of the departmental proceedings. Lack of devotion to duty is mentioned as the reason for the proposed action which was the subject-matter of the earlier proceedings as well. The second proposed action based on the same cause of action proposing to deny promotion or reversion is contemplated under the impugned show-cause notice. Second penalty based on the same cause of action would amount to double jeopardy. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in law in annulling such an action. We are not expressing any opinion on the ambit or scope of any rule.
5. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.
Alert