NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) ALTHOUGH several events are narrated and several orders are sought to be quashed in this Writ Petition, there is only one matter which deserves examination under Art. 226 of the Constitution. We shall first briefly narrate the relevant facts and then proceed to discuss the said matter. ( 2 ) IN 1954. the petitioner was posted as Railway Security Sub Inspector. When he was working as such, he was allotted rent-free quarters situated near the Bangalore Cantonment Railway Station. In 1962, he was transferred to work in what is called the State Special Branch (CID. ). On 12th February 1962 he applied for permssion to continue to occupv the same quarters, because even in the Special Branch he would have to work in Bangalore City itself. That application was rejected by the deputy Inspector General of Police, Railway, by an order dt. 28th April 1962. On 28th May 1962. the petitioner filed an appeal against the said rejection. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, to whom it was addressed, sent it up to the Inspector-General of Police who dismissed the same on 13th August 1962 and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises by 1st September 1962. This was followed bv an order by the Deputy inspector-General of Police dated 21st February 1963 asking him to vacate the premises by 28th February 1963 on pain of being placed under, suspension and disciplinary action being taken against him. He once again appealed to the Inspector-General of Police on 27th February 1963 together with an application to stay the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. On 22nd March 1963, the Inspector-General of Police dismissed his appeal and stated that if he does not vacate the premises within seven days he would be placed under suspension and a disciplinary enquiry held against him. The petitioner made a representation and sought an interview with the Inspector-General of Police. The interview was granted on 18th April 1963. The petitioner states that as advised by the Inspector-General of Police, he ultimately vacated the premises on 28th April 1963. ( 3 ) IN the meanwhile, on 1st April 1963 the petitioner was placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry held against him for disobedience of the orders calling upon him to vacate the premises. The petitioner states that as advised by the Inspector-General of Police, he ultimately vacated the premises on 28th April 1963. ( 3 ) IN the meanwhile, on 1st April 1963 the petitioner was placed under suspension and a departmental enquiry held against him for disobedience of the orders calling upon him to vacate the premises. The enquiry resulted in the petitioner being found guilty of the said misconduct and the imposition of punishment of reduction in his pay bv two stages. On appeal to the Government, the punishment was modified into the reduction by two stages being limited to one year and without cumulative effect. ( 4 ) ON 28th June 1963 an order was made imposing penal rent in respect of the premises occunied by the petitioner, obviously pursuant to rule 26 in Appendix IV of the Mysore Civil Services Rules. An appeal by the petitioner against it presented to the Government was rejected on 3rd August 1964. ( 5 ) THE order of suspension made on 1st April 1963 referred to above was revoked bv another order dated 11th June 1963 and the petitioner was called upon to report to duty. For his failure to do so, another departmental enquiry was held which resulted in an order dated 18th September 1965 holding him guilty of the charge and imposing punishment of compulsory retirement Upon appeal the Government reduced the punishment to the reduction of one increment in his pay with cumulative effect. ( 6 ) NOW, so far as the second disciplinary enquiry for failure to report to duty is concerned, there is scarcely anything which can be said against it or its validity That the petitioner did not report to duty is an admitted fact. His only contention in the writ petition is that he was ill during the relevant period and that the medical certificates sent by him to the enquiry officer have been rejected without giving him an opportunity to prove their truth. But the fact remains that the petitioner did not adduce evidence in support of the same and the opinion of the disciplinary Authority that they did not furnish justification to the petitioner for his omission to report to duty does not appear to be unreasonable or otherwise open to interference by us. But the fact remains that the petitioner did not adduce evidence in support of the same and the opinion of the disciplinary Authority that they did not furnish justification to the petitioner for his omission to report to duty does not appear to be unreasonable or otherwise open to interference by us. ( 7 ) THE first of the departmental enquiries arising out of his omission to vacate the rent-free quarters, however raises the question whether the same could at all have been validly held in view of the collection of what is described as penal rent under Appendix IV of the Mysore Civil services Rules. ( 8 ) THE position in regard thereto, as already summarised, is that rent was actually recovered at penal rates as prescribed in Appendix IV of the Mysore Civil Services Rules, and the disciplinary enquiry is said to be in respect of misconduct consisting in disobeying the orders passed by his Superior Officers calling upon him to vacate the premises. ( 9 ) IN 1964 when these events took place, the position was governed by Rule 26 in Appendix IV of the Mysore Civil Services Rules, para III of which states that these provisions apply to rent-free quarters also. In 1967, fresh Rule 26a was promulgated to apply exclusively to rent-free quarters. Rule 26 describes its topic to be "levy of penal rates of rent in cases where the officials do not vacate the quarters on transfer, etc. ". So far as the present topic is concerned, provisions of Rules 26 and 26a are similar. According to the provisions of those rules, an officer upon transfer may be allowed a reasonable time not exceeding one month to vacate the quarters allotted to him; if he does not do so, three times the usual rent may be recovered for the period exceeding one month; if he does not vacate within three months, appropriate steps have to be taken to get the quarters vacated by him and for the period exceeding three months, five times the usual rent shall be charged and deducted out of his pay. ( 10 ) AS already stated, action was taken for charging rent at the above penal rates, and the petitioner's appeal to waive the penal rates was also rejected by the Government. ( 10 ) AS already stated, action was taken for charging rent at the above penal rates, and the petitioner's appeal to waive the penal rates was also rejected by the Government. ( 11 ) IT is seen that the rule deals exhaustively with the position and should therefore be regarded as self-contained. After permitting a reasonable time to the person concerned to vacate the premises, it provides for levy of rent at penal rates for subsequent periods and also states that if the premises are not vacated within three months, steps should be taken to get them vacated Hence, for the rule to come into operation no separate order by any officer is necessarv or called for. Whether or not such an order is made by any officer, the person in occupation of the quarters, upon transfer, is bound by the rule to vacate the same on pain of coercive steps being taken to evict him and rents at penal rates being recovered from his salary. ( 12 ) NOW, the omission or failure to vacate the quarters within a reasonable time allowed or permissible under the rule may or may not be misconduct which can be dealt with by disciplinary action being taken against the person concerned. ( 13 ) IF it is not misconduct, it cannot be converted into misconduct by an unnecessary order being made to do something which the rule itself reduires the person to do. If it is to be regarded as misconduct, the rule itself prescribes the punishment, viz. , forcible eviction and collection of rents at penal rates. ( 14 ) HENCE, to make a separate order to obey the rule and then to hold a disciplinary enquiry for disobedience thereof, in addition to levying penal rent on the petitioner, will be either a totally invalid action of trying to punish something which is not misconduct or imposing two punishments in respect of the same misconduct. It may be noticed that this is not an offence in respect of which there can be a prosecution followed by conviction and sentence as also a departmental enquiry followed by such punishment as may be permissible under the relevant rules. Hence, an analogy of offence is not available. It may be noticed that this is not an offence in respect of which there can be a prosecution followed by conviction and sentence as also a departmental enquiry followed by such punishment as may be permissible under the relevant rules. Hence, an analogy of offence is not available. ( 15 ) THE result is that both the recovery of penal rents as well as punishment by way of reduction in pay cannot be permitted to remain. One of them will have to be set aside. ( 16 ) THE only question is which of the two should be set aside. ( 17 ) AS the correct position, in our opinion, is that the mandate disobeyed is that of the rule itself and the said disobedience is punished by the same rule, what was incompetent or what could be held to have been incompetent is separate disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner in respect of the same conduct. ( 18 ) WE therefore quash the appellate order of the Government bearing No. HD. 94 PEI. 65 dated 1st November 1965 and the orders of lower authorities in the disciplinary proceedings ending with the said order of the Government. In other respects, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed. --- *** --- .