Once a competent authority has taken a decision and it has been acted upon, a succeeding authority cannot reconsider the matter and arrive at a different decision.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the State of Madhya Bharat in which he had sought a declaration that his dismissal by the revenue Minister is invalid and that he still continues to be in service. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, First Class, Bhind and on appeal the decision was affirmed by the District Judge.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case lie within a short compass: The plaintiff was a Naib tehsildar in year 1940 and was in the service of the Gwalior State. Near about that time, a complaint was filed against him by one Kishanlal. While the enquiry was proceeding, the then Maharaja of Gwalior went on a tour of the Mandsaur District and the matter was placed before him. The then Maharaja of Gwalior reprimanded the plaintiff and issued him a warning by way of punishment. Thereafter he continued to be in service and on two subsequent occasions was promoted to higher grades also. On the formation of Madhya Bharat State, sometime in year 1950, he was served with a notice by the Revenue Minister of madhya Bharat State to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the service in connection with the complaint of Kishanlal referred to above. In reply, it was submitted that the matter had been disposed of by the Ruler of Gwalior State and that having been punished in the form of a warning, it was not proper to punish him once again. The Madhya Bharat Government, however, dismissed him.

( 3 ) THE Government of Madhya Bharat resisted the suit on the ground that the complaint of Kishanlal had not been disposed of and that the State was justified in dismissing him after giving a show cause notice. It was also urged on behalf of the government that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature.

( 4 ) AS has been stated earlier, the trial Court overruled all the objections of the state and decreed the suit. And this decision of the trial Court was confirmed by the District Judge, Bhind.

( 5 ) THE learned Government Advocate has pressed only two points: First, that the complaint by Kishanlal was still pending and that it had not been disposed of. Two, that even if the complaint had been validly disposed of, the State Government was within its right to pass the order of dismissal because there was no bar against it. It was also submitted that the learned District Judge was in manifest error in granting relief to the plaintiff on the ground of natural justice.

( 6 ) WITH regard to the first point, namely, whether the enquiry against the plaintiff in respect of the conclusion of both the Courts below is that the complaint of kishanlal had been closed or not, the enquiry had come to an end and that the matter had been closed by giving a warning to the plaintiff. It has been further held by the trial Court that this conclusion is supported by the circumstance that after the enquiry, the plaintiff was promoted successively to two higher grades by the Ruler of Gwalior. The question whether the enquiry was closed or not is a question of fact and section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code expressly bars second appeal on questions of fact.

( 7 ) WITH regard to the second point, it is submitted that even if the enquiry had been closed, the Government could dismiss the plaintiff on the basis of former complaint.

( 8 ) THE learned District Judge, no doubt, has taken the view that once an enquiry is closed and a person is punished by way of warning issued to him, (and it is not disputed that a warning is a sort of punishment), then on the principles of natural justice, it is not proper to punish him again for the former lapse or duty. On moral grounds, no doubt, it is true and the principles embodied in Section 403 of the code of Criminal Procedure are based on it. The general principle is that no one shall be put twice in jeopardy on the same set of facts. There is no doubt that it is a principle of great wisdom but the scope of Section 403 Criminal Procedure Code