Can't Be Punished More Than Once: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To CISF Constable Awarded Punishment Earlier For Same Misconduct
The Allahabad High Court said that a major penalty cannot be imposed on a CISF personnel for the same misconduct for which minor penalty was already imposed, reiterating that "no person can be punished more than once for the same misconduct".
Petitioner was appointed as Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable in 1987. After getting an increment to his basic pay, petitioner was awarded a minor punishment of withholding 2 annual increments. The petitioner was granted increment in 1991, however, increment payable upon crossing the efficiency bar was not granted to the petitioner. This was because he was found 'Not Yet Fit' by the Efficiency Board due to alleged poor track record.
In 1994, petitioner was declared as 'Fit' and was granted benefit of increments, however, because of stoppage for 3 years, petitioner's pay was less than similarly situated persons. Petitioner challenged the non-award of efficiency bar to him as well as the validity of Efficiency Bar Board proceedings regarding him.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held:
“No person can be punished more than once for the same misconduct. Having already suffered the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with non-cumulative effects and seven days' pay fine, denial of crossing efficiency bar for the same reason has resulted in the salary of the petitioner being diminished with cumulative effect which effect is still continuing when the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, as he is getting a lesser amount as pension. Thus, the denial of crossing efficiency bar has in effect resulted in a major punishment being awarded to the petitioner, for misconducts for which he had already been awarded two minor punishments.”
The Court observed that crossing efficiency bar could only be denied if the petitioner's records revealed that he was not efficient in service. It observed that reasons which do not reflect adversely upon his efficiency to perform his official duties cannot be made grounds for denying the petitioner benefit of crossing the efficiency bar.
It held that the use of phrase 'not yet fit' showed the Board believed that the petitioner was not efficient in the preceding years. Holding that the only material relied on was 2 minor punishments for which petitioner's increments had already been stalled, the Court observed that
“the aforesaid incidents of the years 1988 and 1999 and punishments recorded in the service record of the petitioner do not give rise to a ground for denial to let the petitioner cross the efficiency bar during the subsequent years 1991, 1992 and 1993.”
Noting that no person can be punished twice for the same offence, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed that arrears be paid to the petitioner after recalculating salary and other benefits.
Case Title: Prabhu Nath Yadav v. Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs [WRIT - A No. - 1020 of 2006]