( 1 ) IT is an admitted fact on record that the tenure of petitioner s posting in Delhi has yet not been completed. He was punished for an offence committed by him on 25th July, 1997 and the present transfer is on account of that very offence. Therefore, it cannot be said that this transfer was not by way of punishment but in public interest. No public interest has been explained or justified by the respondent inspite of opportunities given. I, therefore, find force in the submissions of Mr. Kaushik that transferring him out of Delhi as a punishment for the offence for which he has already ben punished amounts to two penalties for one offence. This is not permissible because two penalties cannot be consecutively imposed for the same misconduct. It would amount to double jeopardy. It is well settled rule of English Law which find impression in the maximum "nemo debt his vexari" means a man must not be put twice in peril for the same offence. Under the Indian Constitution in particular Article 20 (2) of the Constitution a man cannot be indicated twice of the same offence. This can be a complete defence for him. In the present case from the reading of the defence set up by the respondent it becomes clear that transfer of the petitioner to Tejpur immediately after he was awarded punishment on 25th July, 1997 amounted to second punishment which was against the right guaranteed under the Constitution of India as well as against the principal of natural justice. ( 2 ) I must make is also clear that respondents have ample power to transfer the petitioner provided it is in the public interest or exigencies of service. So far as the question of tenure of posting in Delhi is concerned, the same can also be curtailed if the exigencies of service so require. But no such exigency has been pointed out. On the contrary the petitioner had represented to the respondent that his son is seriously ill. His child is hardly three years old. He has to be operated upon for which the Army Hospital has fixed the dates as 29-9-1997. His request for deferment of his transfer on account of the illness of his son has also been ignored without any just cause. His child is hardly three years old. He has to be operated upon for which the Army Hospital has fixed the dates as 29-9-1997. His request for deferment of his transfer on account of the illness of his son has also been ignored without any just cause. In similar circumstances this Court in C. W. No. 2065/96 ordered to defer the transfer of that petitioner. The respondent in view of the illness of the petitioner s child and keeping in view its policy, to my mind, ought to have considered the request of the petitioner for deferring his transfer till such time his son is operated and even thereafter till he was convalescing. But instead of doing so respondent rejected his genuine request shows mala fide.