JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed with a prayer that order dated August 30, 1988 (Ex. 12), by which, the petitioner was given punishment by the Disciplinary Authority and order dated August 18, 1989 (Ex. 17), by which, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of petitioner and enhanced the punishment be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was working as Inspector in the office of respondent No. 1 and was served with a charge-sheet on May 31, 1933, the copy of which has been filed and marked Ex. 1. The petitioner filed his reply on July 29, 1983, the copy of which has been produced and marked Ex. 2. Witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents as also on behalf of the petitioner, copies of whose statements have been filed and marked Ex. 3 to Ex. 10. The Disciplinary Authority inflicted a punishment of censure against the petitioner vide order dated August 30, 1988 (Ex. 12). 3. The contention of Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel, is that copy of enquiry report was not given to the petitioner inspite of his letter dated September 14, 1988 (Ex. 13). The petitioner had, therefore, no alternate remedy, but to file the appeal within limitation, the copy of which is marked Ex. 15. It is further submitted that the respondents acted illegally in denying the supply of copy vide letter dated December 1, 1988 (Ex. 16). The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide its order dated August 18, 1989 (Ex. 17), but to the surprise of the petitioner, the punishment awarded to him was enhanced by withholding one grade increment with cumulative effect. It is submitted by the learned counsel that no notice or hearing was given to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority before enhancing the punishment awarded to the petitioner. It is contended that in this way, the petitioner has been punished twice disregarding the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, neither any notice nor any hearing was given to him before the order of enhancement was passed. The learned counsel has also raised several objections regarding legality of the enquiry and punishment awarded to him by the Appellate Authority and has submitted that Article 311(2) of the Constitution has been violated, as no show-cause notice was given to him. The learned counsel has also raised several objections regarding legality of the enquiry and punishment awarded to him by the Appellate Authority and has submitted that Article 311(2) of the Constitution has been violated, as no show-cause notice was given to him. It is also submitted that there was no application of mind either by the Disciplinary Authority or by the Appellate Authority while passing the orders mentioned above. 4. In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, the contentions raised in the writ petition by petitioner have been denied. It is submitted by Shri Sadarangani, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Disciplinary Authority is not bound to accept or ditto the findings of the Enquiry Officer and was within its right to defer from the report of the Enquiry Officer and draw its own conclusion on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record. The Disciplinary Authority has given reasoned order by imposing minor penalty of censure, after giving a speaking order (Ex. 12), which is self-explanatory. The Disciplinary Authority found petitioner to have acted negligently for not informing the higher authorities regarding the lapses, nor seeking order for taking proper action of demolition of unauthorised construction. It is further submitted that the enquiry was conducted under CCA Rules and sub-clause (11) of Rule 16 permits the imposition of minor penalty without affording any further chance of hearing. Therefore, the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India have no application in case of minor penalty like censure. It is also contended that the Appellate Authority enhanced the punishment, after hearing the petitioner as per JDA (CCA) Regulations, 1984 and CCA Rules. The contention of the learned counsel is that the Appellate Authority acted within its jurisdiction by enhancing the punishment. 5. I have heard both the learned counsel and also gone through the pleadings and documents placed on record. 6. It is evident from the facts stated above that the petitioner was awarded penalty of censure by the Disciplinary Authority, against which, he tiled an appeal. So far as the question of not supplying the enquiry report is concerned, the legal position has been dealt with in details in connected matter of Suresh Chand Nirmal v. JDA and another (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4503/89), decided on 6.3.90. Both these petitions were heard on the same day. So far as the question of not supplying the enquiry report is concerned, the legal position has been dealt with in details in connected matter of Suresh Chand Nirmal v. JDA and another (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4503/89), decided on 6.3.90. Both these petitions were heard on the same day. Therefore, relying on the same legal principles laid down in Shadilal Gupta v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1973 SC 1124 ) , it is held that since the Disciplinary Authority awarded minor punishment of censure to the petitioner, he was not entitled to get any copy of enquiry report, keeping in view the provisions of sub-clause (12) of Rule 16 of CCA Rules. 7. However, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been punished twice for the same offence, since minor punishment of censure was awarded to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, in addition to that also, awarded the punishment of with-holding of one grade increment with cumulative effect. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Prerachand Kasliwal v. State of Rajasthan and others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2151/86. decided on July 10, 1989, reported in 1990(1) RLR 178 ) in which it was held that a person cannot be punished twice for the same charge/offence. This was a case in which the delinquent employee was found guilty after enquiry and penalty of with-holding of two grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated July 7, 1980. However, when his case for promotion to the post of Office Assistant was considered in the year. 1983, the promotion was denied to him on account of the penalty awarded to him in the year, 1980. It was, therefore, held that this in substance, means that the delinquent employee has been punished twice firstly by stoppage of increments for two years and secondly by with-holding of promotion on the post of Office Assistant in 1983. This matter was decided by keeping in view the principles laid dawn by Apex Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board (1988) 3 SLR 524). This matter was decided by keeping in view the principles laid dawn by Apex Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board (1988) 3 SLR 524). A reference has been made to sub-clause (12) of Rule 16 of CCA Rules wherein, it has been mentioned, if the penalty specified in clause (i) to clause (iii) of Rule 14 is imposed on a Government servant, it shall not be necessary to supply copy of report of the Enquiry Officer to him, because these are considered to be minor penalties. Rule 14 of the CCA Rules deals with nature of penalties and it provides several types of penalties, which can be awarded to a Government servant. Sub-clause (i) is regarding censure, sub-clause (ii) is regarding with-holding of increments or promotion. Thus, the above-mentioned two clauses of Rule 14 lay down separate penalties, which may be awarded to a Government servant. The petitioner was already awarded penalty of censure by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority awarded second penalty of with-holding of one grade increment with cumulative effect, which is provided in sub-clause (ii) of Rule 14 mentioned above. Thus, this became the case of double jeopardy and the petitioner has evidently been punished twice for the same charge, regarding which, appeal was filed. 8. In the result, the writ petition is partially allowed and the order of Appellate Authority dated August 18, 1989 (Ex. 17) is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to re-consider the matter, keeping in view the provisions of Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1958. The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal within a period of four months.Petition partly allowed. *******