Is It Legal to Split Cases from a Show Cause into Two Charge Sheets? Seeking Advice

I have been issued with 3 showcases with cases of Poultry, KCC, and Micro loans. Then after that, I was issued a chargesheet with only the cases of poultry from the 1st showcause letter, which also had other accounts viz KCC, Micro. Later, before the conclusion of the 1st chargesheet, I was also issued with another chargesheet with a few KCC cases, poultry, and micro loan cases.

Kindly advise if it is legal to issue two chargesheets by segregating the cases from the showcause.

There is no legal requirement that all items stated in the show cause notice have to be put together in the charge sheet. The charge sheet could be either all put together or segregated subject-wise, event-wise, or chronologically, etc. Please check if there is anything specific mentioned in the rules applicable in the matter, but it is not likely.

But sir, then I shall be expecting another charge sheet for the remaining cases. Moreover, the investigations were also concluded before the issuance of the show cause, and a penalty has been awarded.

Please clarify, has the punishment already been issued and are the charge sheets currently being processed? Kindly provide details, and feel free to send a private message through the forum if you prefer to keep this information confidential.

Punishment has been issued for the first charge sheet. I am receiving a subsistence allowance on which the punishment has been implemented. The management is in the process of another punishment for the 2nd charge sheet with the same subject line as in the first charge sheet.

Understanding Double Jeopardy in Chargesheets

Again, we are not clear whether the charge sheet corresponds to the same incident or relates to different incidents, although the nature of the charges is the same. In the case of the former, the Constitution of India has adopted the principle of 'Double jeopardy' under Article 20(1), which means a person cannot be punished twice for the same offense. This principle applies in this case, and the second punishment may become invalid in law.

But in the latter case, there is no bar as otherwise being punished once becomes insurance against subsequent punishment for the same misconduct; therefore, that cannot be the interpretation. Perhaps the latter would be the case as the terminology 'the same subject line' does not clarify the position.