The judgment established that the principle of double jeopardy applies to criminal proceedings before a court of law or judicial tribunal, and the protection against double punishment for the same offence does not extend to disciplinary actions based on a domestic enquiry.

Balanarayana Marar, J.

The appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P.804/1989. Petitioner is the appellant.

2. Petitioner was a Shroff/Godown-keeper attached to the Trivandrum Branch of 1st respondent, the Indian Overseas Bank. For certain misconduct he was charged sheeted by the bank and proceeded against in terms of bipartite settlement between the 1st respondent and its workmen represented by All India Overseas Bank Employees' Union. Petitioner was kept under suspension and an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer found petitioner guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. The disciplinary authority proposed to dismiss him from service and he was asked to show cause against the proposed punishment. After the receipt of his explanation the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of discharge. An appeal was preferred against this order. The appellate authority, the Deputy General Manager, reduced the punishment to one of stoppage of five future increments with cumulative effect. Pursuant to that order petitioner rejoined duty on 11-4-1984. In the meanwhile, the Central Bureau of Investigation had registered a case against the petitioner for offences under Ss.409, 465 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with S.5(1)(c)and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge (CBI/SPE) Ernakulam found petitioner guilty of the offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of 15 days. During the pendency of the trial petitioner was suspended from service. After the judgment of the Special Judge petitioner was dismissed from service by virtue of the provisions contained in regulation 10(1)(b)(i) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 as well as para. 17.3(b) of the bipartite settlement. The order of dismissal was challenged before this Court in the Original Petition. By judgment dt.15-3-1993 the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. That judgment is assailed in this appeal.

3. Heard counsel for appellant.

4. The correctness of the judgment is assailed mainly on the ground that appellant is punished twice for the same offence. He was once found guilty of misconduct by the disciplinary authority and discharged from service. On appeal the punishment was reduced to stoppage of five future increments with cumulative effect. Punishment having been imposed on the petitioner once, the dismissal on the basis of the judgment of the Special Judge is illegal, argues counsel.

5. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the punishment of dismissal in pursuance to the conviction entered by the Special Judge amounts to violation of the right guaranteed under Art.20(2) of the Constitution of India. The Article reads:

"No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once"

Section 300of the Criminal Procedure Code also bars a second trial for the same offence when a court of competent jurisdiction has already convicted or acquitted a person for the same offence. The principle embodied in Art.20(2) of the Constitution and S.300 of the Crl. P.C. is based on the ancient maxim of criminal jurisprudence "nemo debet bis vexari prounae teadern causa" which means that a person should not be vexed twice with respect to the same matter. If some allegations are made against a person and he is tried in respect of those allegations and he is either acquitted or convicted, he should not be tried again with respect to the offences based on the same allegations, according to S.300 of the Crl. P.C. Under S.26 of the General Clauses Act where an act or omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, then the offender shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under cither or any of those enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence. In short, the principle is that no one-should be twice punished