HEAD CONSTABLE KULDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition Filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by H.C. Kuldeep Singh, No. 1128/GRP/HC-1268/Patiala (Petitioner) whereby he has prayed for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ on direction to quash order dated 18.2.1997 (Annexure P-5) passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala vide which it has been ordered to recover Rs. 30,684.86 in monthly instalments of the value of Rs. 800.25 each month. He has also prayed that Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala (Respondent No. 2) be restrained from effecting any recovery from his salary. The has prayed for mandamus to the respondents directing them to refund the amount already recovered from his salary. Now the facts in brief.

(2.) Petitioner was promoted as Head Constable in the Punjab Government (The Railways) on 17.5.1990. He put in written statement, Annexure P-l, in the preliminary departmental enquiry to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Patiala. Show Cause Notice was issued to him by Asst. Inspector General of Police, Government Railway, Punjab Patiala vide No. 858-SP-AIG dated 25.9.1991, Annexure P-2. Vide that Show Cause Notice he had been called upon to show cause why three years approved service be not forfeited. He gave reply to the Show Cause Notice, Annexure P-3.

(3.) Assistant Inspector General of Police gave punishment of warning vide order No. 995-98-ST-AIG dated 27.11.1991, Annexure P-4, and ordered the enquiry to be filed. The petitioner was transferred to Patiala District as Head Constable in the year 1991 vide order dated 17.11.1991 of AIG of Police. That order was received in the office of Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patiala, vide order No. 3031/35-AIG dated 18.2.1997 held him guilty and ordered the recovery of Rs. 30,684.86 i.e. cost of 3567 litres of petrol. He ordered the recovery to be made in monthly instalments each of the value of Rs. 800.25 per month. Copy of the order passed by the SSP, Patiala, is Annexure P-5. Petitioner has challenged order Annexure P-5. passed by SSP, Patiala, saying that the same is illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional, mala fide, null and void, against the principles of natural justice and against Service Rules and Regulations governing the service of the petitioner. Petitioner could not be vexed over again by SSP, Patiala. "No one shall be pul to peril twice over "is applicable to departmental enquiries also on the principles enshrined us in Art. 20 of the Constitution of India. When he had once been exonerated by AIG, Patiala, he could not have been punished for the same lapse by SSP, Patiala. Punishing Authority could not reopen the same charges and revise the punishment when once the enquiry had been disposed of by imposing the punishment of warning. Warning is a punishment in service jurisprudence. For the same lapse, he could not have been punished twice over. Punishment twice over for the same lapse is forbidden by the principle of double jeopardy. No show cause notice was given to him by Senior Superintendent of Police. Patiala calling upon him to show cause why recovery of Rs. 30,684.86 P be not made from him in monthly instalments. Punishment imposed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala is thus in violative of the principles of natural justice.