The principle of double jeopardy does not apply to departmental enquiries, and the Government has the power to order a fresh enquiry after punishment has been imposed under Rule 14 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952.

Kapur, J.

1. This is a rule obtained by the petitioner Mohinder Partap Singh for the issue of a writ of mandamus against the State directing them to withdraw directions for fresh enquiry and to respondent 1 to forbear from proceeding with any enquiry.

2. The petitioner was a Government Food Inspector and was confirmed in that post in March 1951. Sometime in May 1951 an enquiry was started in regard to certain acts done by the petitioner while he was posted at Ludhiana, On 2-11-1951 a charge-sheet was given to the petitioner by the then Director of Health Services. By an order dated the 6th or 9th October, 1953, the petitioner was informed that the punishment imposed was the stoppage of two annual increments without prejudice to his future increments.

3. A letter dated 19-5-1954 shows that the Government was informed of the punishment given and of the explanation submitted by the petitioner sometime on 9-9-1953. On 8-4-1954, the matter was considered by the Anti-Corruption Committee who were of the opinion that the punishment imposed was inadequate. The Government therefore decided that if the petitioner was a temporary Government servant, then his services may be dispensed with in accordance with the contract of service, but as they were later on informed that the petitioner (sic) permanent Government servant, the Gove(sic) directed that he be placed under suspensi(sic) a proper enquiry instituted against him.

4. Paragraph 6 of the affidavit of the (sic)tioner shows that he was informed on the (sic) 1954, that the Government were ordering an (sic)quiry because the punishment imposed was inade quate, that he (the petitioner) was required to submit his explanation afresh and that he submitted an explanation of protest on 24-11-1954. On 19-1-1955 the Government sent a letter, Annexure E, that after considering the explanation given by the petitioner they were of the opinion that the petitioner should be suspended and that he (the petitioner) will be informed when the Enquiry Officer required the petitioner to present himself at Ludhiana for the purposes of enquiry.

5. The petitioner then made an application to this Court on 14-3-1955, and on the 16th of March proceedings in regard to the enquiry were stayed.

6. Counsel for the petitioner supports his application on four grounds (1) that he having been punished once no second enquiry can be ordered because that would be exposing him to double jeopardy which is contrary to natural justice, (2) that the Government cannot take action after the lapse of such a long period inasmuch as a period of one year and 4 1/2 months has elapsed between the two punishments dated 6-10-1953 and the order of fresh enquiry made in February 1955, (3) that the Director of Health Services cannot reopen an enquiry which had ended with, his order of punishment on 6-10-1953 and (4) that Rule 14 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, has no application to the facts of the present case.

7. In support of his plea as to double jeopardy Mr. Bhagirath Das relied on--Maqbool Hussain V/s. State of Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 325 at pp. 330-331 (A). In that case some persons then in a jail made a general assault on jail officials and some of them who were removed into cells resorted to hunger strike. They were punished by the Jail Superintendent by being separately con-fined and their letters and interviews were stopped. Some months after the hunger strike the Jail Superintendent filed complaints before a Magistrate under Rule 41(2) of the Punjab Communist Detenus Rules for committing jail offences and under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. It was held that the Jail Superintendent having taken action under Rule 41(1) and having award ed punishment to the detenus could not make a complaint against them again for the same offence. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court examined the scheme of Rule 41 and observed:

"It is only when the Jail Superintendent considers that the offence is