STATE OF HARYANA versus BALWANT SINGH

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 557 · Decided: 04-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA 
A 
v. 
BALWANT SINGH 
MARCH 4, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987-Rule 
7(1) und (2)(b)-Motor accident by bus Driver of Government Transport C 
Department-Loss caused to the Department due to payment of claim amount 
for the accident-After departmental enquiry delinquent punished with reduction 
of pay-In criminal case for the accident, Driver convicted-Consequently 
terminated from service-Suit alleging non conduct of enquiry and not granting 
opportunity of being heard-Suit decreed-Confirmation of decree by first D 
appellate Court-In second appeal High Court setting aside the decree on the 
ground that delinquent suffered double jeopardy-On appeal, held-In the 
facts of the case delinquent not suffered from double jeopardy-The two orders 
against the delinquent were on different grounds and different causes of action--
When major penalty is imposed on the ground of his conviction, compliance 
of the Rules not required-Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 20(2). 
E 
Respondent, a Driver in the Transport Department of the appellant-
State caused an accident which resulted in death of one and injury to 
another person. The award passed in the claim petition of the victims 
resulted in monetary loss to the Department. Respondent was 
chargesheeted under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and F 
Appeal) Rules, 1987 and after enquiry he was punished with reduction of 
pay. In the criminal proceedings for the accident, he was convicted and 
as a result of the conviction his services were terminated. He filed appeal 
against the termination order on the ground that he could not be tried 
twice for the same offence. During pendency of the appeal, he filed a suit G 
alleging that the termination order was passed without giving him 
opportunity of being heard and without holding any enquiry. Suit was 
dismissed. Appeal against the same was also dismissed. However, in second 
appeal High Court set aside the decrees passed by both the Courts on. the 
ground that he could not be punished twice for the same offence in view H 
557 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant-State contended that the 
respondent was not punished twice for the same offence, as the earlier 
order was in wake of order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal because 
of his causing loss and defamation to the Department; while the later order 
B of terminat'ion was passed on the basis of his conviction; that the 
respondent did not suffer double jeopardy as the cause of action and 
grounds for passing the two orders were different and distinct; and that 
High Court was not right in reversing the concurrent findings of fact. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. In view of the facts of the case, there was no question of 
prosecuting and punishing the respondent for the same offence twice. The 
High Court was not right in equating departmental enquiries on different 
ground to a prosecution in criminal case. High Court also has failed to 
D see that the two orders passed against the respondent were on different 
grounds and were on different causes of action. (561-A-B) 
1.2. There was no question of the respondent suffering 11 double 
jeopardy. The aid of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India was wrongly 
taken. Article 20(2) does not get attracted to the facts of the present case. 
E Before the trial Court, no issue was raised as to the respondent suffering 
a double jeopardy although in the first appellate court, discussion was 
~ade on this point. (562-H; 563-A) 
F 
Union of India and Anr. v. P.D. Yadav, (20021 l SCC 405, referred 
to. 
2. When a major penalty is proposed to be imp.osed upon a person 
on the ground of conduct which led to his conviction on a criminal charge, 
following the provisions contained in Rule 7(1) and (2) is not l'equired. 
Rule 7 itself makes a distinction in regard to the punishment to be imposed 
G depending on the grounds. (561-D-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5124 of2001. 
From .the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.2000 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 2154 of 1998. 
H 
Praveen Kumar Rai, for Ms. H. Wahi, for the Appellant. 
STATE v. BAL WANT SINGH [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.] 
559 
Sanjay Sarin and Ms. Manjula Gupta, for Ashok Mathur, for the A 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Co

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.