No Person Can Be Punished More Than Once For The Same Misconduct: Allahabad High Court Allows CISF Constable's Plea

The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition filed by a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable and stated that no person can be punished more than once.

The Court considered that the petitioner could not have been denied the crossing efficiency bar for reasons that do not reflect adversely upon his ability to perform his official duties efficiently.

The Single-Judge bench Justice Subhash Vidyarthi Stated that, “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.”

Advocate Namit Sharma appeared for the Petitioner, and Advocate Dipak Seth appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The petitioner was appointed as a constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in 1987. After an increment in the year 1988, the petitioner’s basic pay was increased. In the year 1988, the petitioner was awarded a minor punishment of withholding of annual increment for two consecutive years without cumulative effect. Again, in the year 1991, the petitioner was awarded a punishment of seven days’ pay fine. Due to withholding of annual increment for two consecutive years without cumulative effect, the increments due for the years 1989 and 1990 were released in the year 1991, raising the petitioner’s pay scale. The increment payable upon crossing the efficiency bar was not granted to the petitioner as he was found “NYF” (not yet fit) by the Efficiency Bar Board in the proceedings conducted in the years 1991, 1992, and 1993. Ultimately, the petitioner was declared “fit” by the Efficiency Bar Board in the year 1994, and his basic salary was fixed accordingly.

The Court noted, “ In view of the aforementioned facts, I am of the considered view that the denial of crossing of efficiency bar to the petitioner was illegal and so was the rejection of his representations against the order denying crossing the efficiency bar…A Writ of Mandamus is issued directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as having been crossed efficiency bar in the years 1991, 1992 & 1993 and they shall re-calculate the salary/pension payable to him accordingly and also pay the amount of arrears to him within a period of four months from the date, the certified copy of this order is produced before them.”

Cause Title: Prabhu Nath Yadav v. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs (WRIT - A No. - 1020 of 2006)

Appearence

Petitioner Advocate Namit Sharma, Advocate Manish Misra.

Respondent Advocate Dipak Seth, Advocate Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Krishna Kumar Pandey, Advocate Raj Kumar Singh.

Click here to read/download the Order