The principle of double jeopardy prohibits imposing a second punishment on the same charge after the conclusion of the criminal case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order of His Lordship passed in W.P.No.19351 of 2018 dated 20.03.2019.)

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.

A. The Writ Appeal:

Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.03.2019 in W.P.No.19351 of 2018 in and by which, the writ petition filed by the appellant / petitioner, challenging the show cause notice dated 21.05.2018, has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the impugned order is only a show cause notice and thereby directing the appellant to submit his explanation.

B. The facts of the Case :

2. The factual matrix on which this Writ Appeal arises is that on 16.04.2005, a charge memorandum containing two charges against the appellant was issued. The charge being that while he was functioning as the Senior Inspector / Special Officer at K.K.161 Samoor Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society during the period from 25.05.2001 upto 21.12.2021, without even obtaining jewels, jewel loans were granted and the repayment amounts were not properly accounted for and has been misappropriated. The second charge is also relating to the same transaction, but however it relates to non-exercise of his supervisory duties.

3. On the said charges, enquiry proceedings were completed and by an order dated 29.09.2009, a punishment of ''one-increment cut with cumulative effect'' was imposed. On the very same charges, a criminal complaint was also lodged and the same was investigated for the offences under Section 120(B) read with Sections 109, 408, 409, 465, 471 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code by the Inspector of Police CCIW CID in Crime No.14 of 2003. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed proposing totally 9 accused, including the appellant, as guilty of the above charges.

C. The Trial :

4. The case was taken on file at C.C.No.184/2004 by the Judicial Magistrate, Pallacode and after trial, the learned Magistrate, even though found the accused guilty of the offences, however, exercising powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') released the appellant on probation, without imposing any sentence on them on conditions which were imposed on the said judgment.

D. Findings of the Court:

5. Now, after the receipt of the said judgment, the impugned show cause notice dated 21.05.2018 was issued to the appellant directing him to show cause as to why further punishment shall not be imposed on him under Section 17(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The said show cause notice is challenged by the appellant in the present writ petition No.19351 of 2018 which is now dismissed, aggrieved by which, the present Appeal is filed before this Court.

6. Heard Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs.S.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

E. The Submissions :

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in this case, firstly, already a punishment on the same set of charges has been imposed and once again on the same set of charges, the respondent has decided to go ahead to complete the disciplinary proceedings, without waiting for the outcome of the criminal case and imposed a punishment. There is no question of again imposing a second punishment after the outcome of the criminal case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in D.Narayanan vs. District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar District (2009) 4 MLJ 708). Secondly, the learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that even though the Judicial Magistrate thought it fit to convict the appellant, no sentence was imposed on him and he was released under Section 4 of the Act. Once he is released under Section 4 of the Act, he is entitled for the benefit under Section 12 of the Act, which removes any disqualification attaching to the said conviction. In that view o