JUDGMENT 1. - The short question which arises for consideration of this court in the instant writ petition is as to whether where a departmental enquiry has been initiated against a delinquent official following the framing of charge in view of certain allegations of misconduct and subsequently his re-instatement of service has been directed which is conditional and subject to the final outcome of the said Enquiry which is still awaited, should the said delinquent official be permitted to advance the plea that since it attracts the doctrine of double jeopardy, no further enquiry proceedings should be initiated or completed against the said delinquent as it would amount to visiting with the penalty of being punished twice for the same charge of which he stood exonerated earlier? 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Light Inspector in June, 1981, by the Municipal Board, Suratgarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'). One Babu Ram Verma, a member of the Board made a complaint against the petitioner on 1st of February, 1984, and the then Chairman of the said Board directed the Executive Officer, Suratgarh to conduct an enquiry in the matter against the petitioner on the same day i.e. 1st of February, 1984. After conducting the enquiry, the Executive Officer prima-facie came to the conclusion that the disciplinary enquiry should, apart from the petitioner, be also simultaneously held against the another lineman of the Board one Shri Budh Ram. During the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner and co-employee were placed under suspension in terms of order dated 15th of February, 1984. The Chairman agreed to the proposal of the Executive Officer for suspension of the petitioner and the said order of suspension was ratified vide order dated 22nd February, 1984. This was followed by a chargesheet dated 12th March, 1984, alongwith statement of allegations which were duly served on the petitioner. During the pendency of the enquiry, suspension of the petitioner which was earlier directed was revoked vide order dated 29th May, 1984. 3. After the completion of the enquiry, the Executive Officer submitted a report dated 27th June, 1984, to the Chairman of the Board, duly exonerating the petitioner of the charge which was duly approved by the Chairman. During the pendency of the enquiry, suspension of the petitioner which was earlier directed was revoked vide order dated 29th May, 1984. 3. After the completion of the enquiry, the Executive Officer submitted a report dated 27th June, 1984, to the Chairman of the Board, duly exonerating the petitioner of the charge which was duly approved by the Chairman. The petitioner was found to be innocent and stood exonerated of the charges and consequently the proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner following the departmental enquiry were dropped with a direction to pay full back-wages to him for the period during which he remained under suspension. This fact is borne-out from perusal of the order dated 04.08.1984. It appears that in pursuance to the direction of the then Dy. Director, Local Bodies, Jaipur, the Regional Assistant Director, Local Bodies, Jodhpur, again wanted to enquire into the matter, for which the petitioner had stood exonerated. 4. In compliance with this letter dated 26.02.1985, the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Suratgarh had directed the petitioner to proceed to Jodhpur, vide his order dated 11.03.1985. Soon thereafter the petitioner contacted to seek necessary instructions in the matter from Regional Assistant Director Local Bodies, Jodhpur, respondent No.4, as the petitioner was ailing at that time and was unable to attend the office. The said request of the petitioner was not acceded to and he was again directed by respondent No.4 to attend the office and which he did by joining the duties on 12.08.1985. Thereafter the petitioner regularly attended the office on 26.08.1985 and 27.08.1985 and also made his representations. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 did not call the petitioner and instead issued him a show-cause notice to explain his position in terms of the said Notice. It has further been contended that in compliance of the order dated 24.07.1987 marked Exhibit 10, issued by the Dy. Director, Local-Bodies, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Respondent No.3, the Executive Officer of the Board, respondent No.2, had directed that a sum of Rs. 71,911- 50 Paisa is to be recovered from the petitioner's pay by deducting ⅓rd of the pay till the realisation of the said amount. He had further directed that the emoluments admissible to the petitioner during the period of suspension are also to be deducted from the petitioner's salary. 5. 71,911- 50 Paisa is to be recovered from the petitioner's pay by deducting ⅓rd of the pay till the realisation of the said amount. He had further directed that the emoluments admissible to the petitioner during the period of suspension are also to be deducted from the petitioner's salary. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid impugned actions of the officers of the Board, the petitioner was left with no alternative remedy except to move this court by way of the instant writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that since the order dated 04.08.1987, passed by the Board, by which he was exonerated of all the charges levelled against him, having become final, no further enquiry could thereafter be held at the behest of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, since it would amount to double jeopardy against the petitioner in view of the settled law that no person can be punished twice for the same offence. Even otherwise the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had no jurisdiction to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner. It has further been contended that there is no provision under the Rajasthan Municipal (Subordinate and Ministerial Service) Rules, 1963 (for short the 'Rules'), authorising the said respondents to hold de-novo enquiry against the petitioner. Besides, there is no provision under the Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1958, by which respondents Nos.3 and 4 could be authorised to conduct an enquiry. 6. In the back drop of above events, it has been contended that the enquiry dated 23rd May, 1987, is absolutely without jurisdiction and void. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner had vehemently contended at the bar that the aforesaid enquiry report is without any factual foundation, without authorisation and against the provisions of the law and relevant rules as referred to above. He further argued that the enquiry report can at the most be said to be a preliminary enquiry report and can not be the basis for an order for recovery against the petitioner nor it can have the effect of setting-asside the exoneration order dated 04.08.1984. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the enquiry report dated 23rd May, 1987 (Exhibit-11) is against the principles of natural justice since no opportunity was allowed to the petitioner to prove his case before the enquiry officer (Respondent No.4). 7. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the enquiry report dated 23rd May, 1987 (Exhibit-11) is against the principles of natural justice since no opportunity was allowed to the petitioner to prove his case before the enquiry officer (Respondent No.4). 7. In reply to show-cause notice issued by this court, the respondents have filed their reply controverting the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner while respondent Nos.1 and 2 have taken the stand that order Exhibit-5 dated 04.08.1984, by which the petitioner stood exonerated was passed after report submitted by the Executive Officer of the Board and it was found that the charges as mentioned in Annexure-3 were not proper and as such the petitioner was reinstated in service with a direction that the enquiry shall continue against the petitioner and hence it is obviously incorrect to say that the petitioner was found to be innocent and was exonerated from the charges and proceedings in the departmental enquiry were dropped. It has been contended in this regard that from perusal of order (Annexure-5) dated 04.08.1984, it is apparent that the petitioner was reinstated subject to the condition that the departmental enquiry shall remain pending while the enquiry officer found the petitioner to be innocent to the charges, framed against him. The respondents have further stated in their reply that the enquiry which was initiated against the petitioner was not acrually dropped and is still pending and hence it would be wrong to say that on the directions of the then Dy. Director of the Board or for that matter any other functionary of the Board the petitioner was victimised as so alleged by him. 8. In reply to para-17 it has been specifically mentioned that since from the perusal of document Exhibit-10, dated 24.07.1985, which is an internal correspondence, it was found that the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 71,911.50 paisa, and as such the order dated 29.08.1987 (Exhibit-12), was issued directing realisation/recovery of the said amount from the petitioner's salary. It was further directed to be realised from the petitioner by deducting ⅓rd of the amount from his salary till full recovery was made with a further direction that the petitioner shall be paid suspension allowance during the period he remained under suspension was also to be deducted. It was further directed to be realised from the petitioner by deducting ⅓rd of the amount from his salary till full recovery was made with a further direction that the petitioner shall be paid suspension allowance during the period he remained under suspension was also to be deducted. It has further been contended that from perusal of the documents Exhibit-10 and Exhibit-11 on the record which are internal correspondence between the department from its higher officers dated 24.07.1987 and 23.05.1987, it is explicitly clear that it has been found that the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 71,911.50 paisa, for which an order for recovery/realisation of the said amount was passed at the behest of respondent No.2, i.e. the Executive Officer of the Board, since the petitioner was not able to render any satisfactory explanation for the said amount nor he was in possession of relevant record from which it could be established that the said amount was not misappropriated and actually it belonged to the petitioner. As regards the petitioner's case that the abovesaid amount actually belonged to him, it has been contended that if it was so then nothing prevented the petitioner from maintaining proper account book as regards the electrical goods and other items which were purchased for the maintenance of the Board but on the contrary the petitioner was not able to render any satisfactory explanation with regard to their sale during the course of departmental enquiry. On merits it has been contended that since the impugned order dated 04.08.1985 (Exhibit-5), passed by the Board, exonerating the petitioner was not final, hence no conclusion can be drawn from the same that the petitioner stood finally exonerated of the charges against him. 9. In reply to the show cause notice, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also adopted the similar stand as taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their reply as aforesaid. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the relevant law on the subject. 9. In reply to the show cause notice, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also adopted the similar stand as taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their reply as aforesaid. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the relevant law on the subject. Prima-facie I am of the view that the petitioner, who was serving as Light Inspector with the respondent No.4 had obviously great responsibility to perform besides the responsibility to maintain proper accounts connected with purchase of electrical goods on behalf of the Board and which he had obviously failed to perform and was thus guilty of the lapse on his part on account of his failure to exercise his public duties connected with his position. On account of misappropriation of funds for the safe custody of which the petitioner was entrusted with responsibility on behalf of the Board, the petitioner had failed to perform his duties satisfactorily and he had also discharged his duties dishonestly by indulging in activities which were grossly prejudicial to the interest of the Board in as much as he had misappropriated the amount of Rs. 71,911.50 for which he could not render any satisfactory explanation during the course of departmental enquiry which fact is evident and well established from the enquiry report dated 23.05.1987 vide Exhibit-11. I am consequently of the view that the said enquiry report cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as against the principles of natural justice, equity or fair play since full opportunity was allowed to the petitioner by the Board to prove his case. Consequently, the order passed by respondent No.2 directing the recovery of the aforesaid amount from the petitioner can not be said to be without jurisdiction or faulted with. I am further of the view that it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned orders as aforesaid were passed on account of any malafides, bias or illwill, which cannot be attributed to respondent No.4 or its officers who had passed the aforesaid orders. 11. I am further of the view that it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned orders as aforesaid were passed on account of any malafides, bias or illwill, which cannot be attributed to respondent No.4 or its officers who had passed the aforesaid orders. 11. Before parting with the case, I would like to observe that the order dated 04.08.1984 (Exhibit-5), by which the petitioner was exonerated of the charges framed against him is a conditional order subject to the outcome of the final result of the departmental enquiry and hence the said order cannot be said to be the final order by which the petitioner can be held to claim any benefit of complete exoneration. In other words the reinstatement of the petitioner was subject to the final outcome of the Enquiry proceedings and hence at that stage it cannot be inferred that the petitioner stood finally exonerated of the charge nor there was any bar for the department to proceed further against the petitioner and hence it cannot be said that the petitioner has been punished twice for the same offence nor the doctrine of double jeopardy would be attracted to this case. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance upon judgment of the Apex court in the matter of the State of Assam and another v. J.N. Roy Biswas, AIR 1975 S.C. 2277 and Dwarka Chand v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1958 Rajasthan 38 . I have examined the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court as well as of this Court. In my opinion the doctrine of double jeopardy would be attracted only in those cases where departmental enquiry initiated against a delinquent official has been completely closed as a result of final order having been passed and it is only thereafter if the said delinquent officer is found to be innocent and has been absolved of the charges levelled against him and which has resulted in his reinstatement would attract a bar as regards the second enquiry after his exoneration on the same charge or charges but not otherwise. In the instant case since the enquiry had not been completely closed and the reinstatement of the petitioner was made conditional and was subject to the outcome of the final enquiry result, hence it can not be construed that the petitioner had stood fully exonerated of the charges and consequently, there cannot be any bar for the department to initiate the second enquiry or to complete the enquiry which was already pending against the petitioner.Consequently, I find no merit in the said writ petition and the same is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******