The judgment established that the imposition of additional punishment after the execution of initial sentences violates the principle of double jeopardy and constitutional protections, emphasizing the need for valid reasons and procedural fairness in enhancing punishments.

Permod Kohli, J.

1. Petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the C.R.P.F., in August, 1975. While being posted in Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat a departmental inquiry was conducted against him relating to certain charges and he was awarded punishment of 12 days of imprisonment in quarter-guard from 4.7.1984 to 15.7.1984 and all pay and allowances for the said period were forfeited. He was also sentenced to `packdrill. These sentences were executed in July itself.

2. After suffering the aforesaid punishments petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 27.1.1986 by respondent No. 3 proposing to award the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year in the time scale of his pay without future effect in addition to the punishment already awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 4.7.1984. Petitioner was asked to show- cause against the proposed enhancement of punishment and also provided an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed penalty. The petitioner submitted his reply. However, the respondent No. 3 issued another show-cause notice dated 1.12.1986 proposing to further enhance the punishment and penalty of removal from service was proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner. Petition was again provided opportunity of making representation. Petitioner again submitted his detailed reply, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-4.

3. Respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 4.5.1987, however, ordered removal of the petitioner from service while imposing punishment vide the aforesaid order. Respondent No. 3 has stated that charge No. 2 proved against the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 has observed that the petitioner could not give any single cogent reason against the proposed show cause notice and accordingly the punishment of removal from service has been ordered.

4. Petitioner challenged the punishment imposed upon him in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, he being a resident of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. A copy of the writ petition filed in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. This writ petition was, however, disposed of by the said High Court as not maintainable, order impugned having been passed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid High Court and petitioner was given liberty to approach the competent court vide order dated 29.3.1989. It appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General, C.R.P.F. A copy of they memorandum of appeal has been placed on record as Annexure P-8.

5. The petitioner has now filed the present petition challenging the order of his removal from service. The petitioner has challenged this order primarily on the ground that he was already awarded the punishment of imprisonment and forfeiture of one increment as also the `packdrill. The said punishments having been inflicted upon the petitioner and sentence executed, respondent were not entitled to enhance the punishment or impose any other punishment upon the petitioner.

6. The respondent in their reply filed before this Court have defended the impugned order (Annexure P-5) on the basis of the power allegedly exercised under Rule 29 (d) of the Armed Forces - Central Reserve Police Force Act 1949. It is contended that at the time of inspection of Group Center C.R.P.F., Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat, Inspector General, C.R.P.F. observed in his inspection note that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was very lenient and ordered the case to be reviewed by the Deputy Inspector General, C.R.P.F. and accordingly in exercise of his power of review under Rule 29 (d) of the said rules a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for enhancement of the punishment i.e. stoppage of increment for a period of one year in addition to the punishment already awarded to the petitioner by the Commandant, Group Centre, C.R.P.F. in Gandhi Nagar. It is further stated that since the aforesaid punishment was also found not to be commensurate wit