NAEAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, who while working as an Officer in the Employment exchange at Bijapur was found to have acted with impropriety in giving a benefit to his brother, was lepprted against by the Vigilance commission, whereupon the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, directed an enquiry against him and appointed the Assistant Commissioner, bijapur Division, to do so. The Assistant Commissioner after enquiry imposed a punishment of with-holding two increments. It was later discovered by the Government that as the Vigilance Commission had started investigation, it was necessary tnat the Government themselves should have directed an enquiry in view of Rule 14-A of the CCA. Rules. By that time, the period of six months prescribed for review under rule 27 of the CCA. Rules had expired. Hence, they moved the governor under Rule 26 of the CCA. Rules to review the matter. The governor, after issuing a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not act under Rule 26, set aside the order of punishment made by the Assistant Commissioner and remitted the case to the Government for ordering a de novo enquiry to be held in accordance with the rules. ( 2 ) THE Government have taken subsequent steps pursuant thereto to get a fresh enquiry held. ( 3 ) THE petitioner impugns the order of the Governor and subsequent action taken by the Government pursuant thereto. ( 4 ) THE two main arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner are: (1) that the ordering of fresh enquiry by the Governor exposes the petitioner to what may be called double jeopardy in law; and (2) that Rule 26 of the CCA. Rules is itself invalid. ( 5 ) WE do not think that it is at all possible to say that this is a case where the petitioner has been exposed to double jeopardy in respect of the same conduct. The original punishment imposed by the Assistant commissioner has been set aside and fresh enquiry is ordered. It does not mean that the petitioner is being tried twice over and punished twice over for the same conduct. If such an argument is accepted, no appellate authority can validly make an order of remand. The decision of the andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Srinivasa Rao v. Director of Agriculture, ap. , 1971 Ser. It does not mean that the petitioner is being tried twice over and punished twice over for the same conduct. If such an argument is accepted, no appellate authority can validly make an order of remand. The decision of the andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Srinivasa Rao v. Director of Agriculture, ap. , 1971 Ser. L. R. 24, is of no assistance to the petitioner, because the facts dealt with therein are different and even the proposition that a second enquiry cannot be held in respect of the same conduct is qualified by the limitation, that such a second enquiry can be validly made, if there is specific rule authorising the same. ( 6 ) THE attack of unconstitutionally rests upon nothing but this, namely, that whereas the Rule 27, governing ordinary appellate authority or the Government itself prescribed a period of six months within which action has to be commenced, Rule 26 gives unlimited power to the governor to review at any time as he likes. It is stated that this is a case of serious discrimination especially when this unlimited power is conferred by the Governor upon himself, because the Governor himself has made these rules under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) THE power under Rule 26, however, is one conferred upon the head of the State, obviously intended to be exercised in the interests of justice and purity of administration, in cases where ordinary authorities functioning under the rules are unable to take corrective action. That power is distinct and different from the power of review conferred on the appellate authority by Rule 27. Hence the two cannot be regarded as the same or similar so as to be necessarily subjected to the same rule of limitation. ( 8 ) THE distinct and different nature of the power and the object with which the same is reposed in the Head of the State makes it impossible to accept the suggestion that there is anything in it which is violative of Art. 14 or Art. 16 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .