JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent on 20.8.90 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13) passed by the respondent (Managing Director, Sirohi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.) by which services of the petitioner were terminated under Rule 17(4) of the PACKS Cooperative Society Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1977) with immediate effect, be quashed and set aside. 2. The facts as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) That when the petitioner was posted at Lunol Gram Cooperative Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society) as Manager, the Officiating Assistant Executive Officer inspected the Society from 9.1.88 to 10.1.88 and in his inspection report, it was found that the petitioner was guilty of misappropriation of property of the society. (ii) That the further case of the petitioner is that on the basis of inspection report of Assistant Executive Officer, the respondent served charge-sheet dated 28.1.88 (Annex. 1) on the petitioner which contained 6 charges. (iii) That the petitioner filed reply (Annex.2) to the charge- sheet dated 28.1.88 issued against him. (iv) That on the basis of charge-sheet dated 28.1.88 (Annex. 1), a case was registered against the petitioner under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Society Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1965) in the court of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sirohi bearing case No.190/88. (v) That in case No.190/88 registered against the petitioner in the Court of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the Assistant Registrar found the petitioner guilty of five charges out of six charges and for the sixth charge, the petitioner was discharged under Section 74(2) of the Act of 1965 and an order dated 30.7.88 (Annex.6) was passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 28218.25 in the society. The petitioner was further directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1000/- as surcharge and Rs. 500/- as process fees under Section 74(7) of the Act of 1965. (vi) That in compliance of order dated 30.7.88 (Annex.6) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the petitioner deposited Rs. 18,000/- vide receipt dated 27.10.88 (Annex.7) and Rs. 10,000/- vide receipt dated 1.7.89 (Annex.8). (vii) That thereafter the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated. 500/- as process fees under Section 74(7) of the Act of 1965. (vi) That in compliance of order dated 30.7.88 (Annex.6) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the petitioner deposited Rs. 18,000/- vide receipt dated 27.10.88 (Annex.7) and Rs. 10,000/- vide receipt dated 1.7.89 (Annex.8). (vii) That thereafter the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated. 14.8.1989 which was received by the petitioner on 5.10.1989 and further a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment was also imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner was also allowed some more time to deposit the amount of surcharge and process fees. (viii) That further case of the petitioner is that after his reinstatement, he was subjected to hostile discrimination and when he was not paid the arrears of his salary, he submitted several representations in this respect. A copy of representation dated 9.6.90 is marked as Annex.10. (ix) That further case of the petitioner is that he was given a show cause notice dated 12.4.90 (Annex. 11) by the respondent as to why his services be not terminated under Rule 17(4) of the Rules of 1977. (x) That the petitioner submitted reply (Annex.12) to the notice dated 12.4.1990 (Annex.11). (xi) That further case of the petitioner is that thereafter through order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13), the services of the petitioner under Rule 17(4) of the Rules of 1977 were terminated. Hence, the present writ petition with the above- mentioned prayer. 3. In this writ petition, the following submissions has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner: That since on the basis of same allegations, a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect was already imposed on the petitioner through order dated 14.8.89 (Annex.9) passed by the respondent and further more, he reinstated in service, therefore, issuance of notice dated 12.4.90 (Annex. 11) and order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13) passed by the respondent are bad in law and they should be set aside as the petitioner was subjected to double jeopardy as enquiry for the same charges had already been conducted by the Assistant Registrar and further more, the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13) is violative of article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition be allowed. 4. 13) is violative of article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition be allowed. 4. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent and a preliminary objection was taken in the reply that this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner had alternative efficacious and speedy remedy by way of appeal provided under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1977 and on merit, it has been submitted by the respondent that since the petitioner had committed embezzlement and he was in the habit of doing so, therefore, the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13) was rightly passed. Hence, the writ petition be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13) passed by the respondent speaks that the amount which was demanded from the petitioner through notice dated 12.4.90 (Annex. 11) was not deposited by the petitioner and, therefore, his services were terminated under Rule 17(4) of the Rules of 1977. 7. Through notice dated 12.4.90 (Annex. 11) issued by the respondent, the petitioner was asked to give explanation on three charges. 8. Reply to the notice dated 12.4.90 (Annex. 11) issued by the respondent was filed by the petitioner on 26.4.90. 9. On charges No.1, the reply of the petitioner was that the amount in question was deposited by the petitioner on 7.5.&2 through receipt No.32 and the balance amount of Rs. 1,000/- had also been paid by the petitioner as Rs. 100/- were deducted from the salary of the petitioner per month. 10. Reply to charge No.2 was that on 26.12.85, Rs. 550/- were deposited by the petitioner through Receipt No.79. 11. So far as charge No.3 is concerned, there is no dispute on the point that for that, separate charge-sheet was also given to the petitioner and the same is Annex. 1 and the amount in question in respect of charge No.3 has been deposited by the petitioner and after conclusion of that enquiry, the petitioner had already been punished through order dated 14.8.189 (Annex.9) in the manner that he was reinstated in service and penalty of stoppage of one grade increment was imposed on the petitioner. 12. 1 and the amount in question in respect of charge No.3 has been deposited by the petitioner and after conclusion of that enquiry, the petitioner had already been punished through order dated 14.8.189 (Annex.9) in the manner that he was reinstated in service and penalty of stoppage of one grade increment was imposed on the petitioner. 12. The position of law is very much clear that when Government servant is found guilty after proper enquiry into the charges brought against him and after considering his reply, if he has been punished and has been reinstated, de novo enquiry cannot be initiated against the Government servant on the ground of Principal of double jeopardy. For that judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. J.N. Roy Biswas reported in (1976) 1 SCC 234 may be referred to. Since in this case enquiry was concluded against the petitioner in respect of charge No.3 of show cause notice dated 12.4.90 (Annex.11) through order dated 30.7.88 (Annex.6) and through order dated 14.8.89 (Annex.9) passed by the respondent, the petitioner was reinstated in service, however a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner, therefore, for charge No.3 of show cause notice dated 12.4.90 (Annex.11), he cannot be punished twice. 13. Now there remains charges No.1 and 2 of show cause notice dated 12.4.90 (Annex. 11). For that, there is specific reply of the petitioner which is found in reply dated 26.4.90(Annex.12) and as per the reply of the petitioner the amount in question was deposited by him long back upto the year 1985 and from perusal of charges No. 1 and 2 of the show cause notice dated 12.4.90(Annex.11), it appears that they relate to the period prior to 1985 and the amount involved was very small. A perusal of impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13) shows that this amount was not deposited by the petitioner though even in the reply (Annex.12), it was alleged by the petitioner that the same was deposited by him. It appears that no enquiry in this respect has been made by the respondent before passing the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13). 14. The question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13) can be sustained or not. 15. It appears that no enquiry in this respect has been made by the respondent before passing the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13). 14. The question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex. 13) can be sustained or not. 15. For Charge No.3 of show cause notice dated 12.4.90 (Annex. 11), as already stated above that charge cannot stand because a person cannot be punished twice for the same charge. For charges No.1 and 2, it may be stated here that they related to the period prior to the year 1985 and simple case of the petitioner was that the amount in question had already been deposited by him and further more the amount involved in respect of charges No.1 and 2 is also small one. Therefore, in these circumstances, it would be inequitable and unjust to punish the petitioner for those charges and severe punishment in the shape of termination of service cannot be sustained especially when the petitioner submitted that the amount in question had already been deposited by him, but no enquiry in this respect was conducted by the respondent. Sub-rule 3 of Rule 74 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1966) provides that on receipt of the statement referred to in sub-rule 2, the Registrar or the person authorised by him, if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for holding the person or persons liable, shall frame charges and as per sub- rule 4 of Rule 74 of the Rules of 1966, enquiry would be conducted. In the present case, the petitioner submitted reply dated 26.4.90 (Annex. 12) in which there was specific reply of the petitioner that he had deposited the amount in question in respect of charges No.1 and 2 of show cause notice dated 12.4.90 (Annex. 11 ), but that reply was not considered and no enquiry was held as provided under Rule 74 of the Rules of 1966. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex.13) cannot be sustained even in respect of charges No. 1 and 12. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the case of Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore reported in 1971(1) SCC 1 . Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex.13) cannot be sustained even in respect of charges No. 1 and 12. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the case of Channabasappa Basappa Happali v. State of Mysore reported in 1971(1) SCC 1 . In my opinion, this authority would not be helpful to the learned counsel for the respondents as in this case the charges No.1 and 2 contained in the show cause notice dated 12.4.90 (Annex.11) were not admitted by the petitioner through his reply (Annex. 12). 17. So far as preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner had equally efficacious alternative remedy is concerned, it may be stated here that there is no dispute on the point that the appeal has been provided under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1977, but looking to the fact that this writ petition was filed on 20.8.90 and now 12 years have elapsed, it would not be proper to throw the present writ petition simply on the ground that alternative remedy was available. It may further be stated here that as principle, alternative remedy bars the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but that limitation is not absolute and in exceptional cases, even there is alternative remedy the writ lies and since in the present case, 12 years have elapsed, therefore, this case should be decided on merits instead of throwing away the writ petition on the ground.of alternative remedy. For that judgment of this Court in the case of Project Manager v. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act reported in 1998(3) WLC 435, may be referred to wherein it has been held as under: "Constitution of India, Article 226-Alternative remedy- Alternative remedy not absolute bar-Petitions filed as back as in 1991-Not proper to throw them away alter seven years on ground that alternative remedy was available." In this respect, following authorities may also be referred to: (i) AIR 1971 SC 33 -L. Hirday Narain v. Income Tax Officer. (ii) RLR 1998(1) 172-Bal Kishan v. Dist. Judge, Pali. Thus, the plea of the respondent regarding alternative remedy stands rejected. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the case of Krishna Kumar v. Rajasthan Co-operative Credit Institution reported in WLR 1992(8) RAJ. 252. (ii) RLR 1998(1) 172-Bal Kishan v. Dist. Judge, Pali. Thus, the plea of the respondent regarding alternative remedy stands rejected. 18. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the case of Krishna Kumar v. Rajasthan Co-operative Credit Institution reported in WLR 1992(8) RAJ. 252. In my opinion, the writ petition was filed in the year 1990 and more than 12 years have elapsed, therefore, this authority would not be helpful to the learned counsel for the respondent. 19. The learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the case of Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari reported in AIR 1996 SC 1249 : [ 1996(5) SLR 381 (SC)] . This authority is also not applicable in the fact of the present case as in the case of Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh (supra), the petitioner of that case was convicted in the criminal case and it is not the position before this court. 20. That when the termination order dated 26.7.90 (Annex.13) is to beset aside, the natural consequence would be that petitioner would be entitled for reinstatement. The position of law in this respect is that when termination order of an employee is found to be illegal, normal rule is to grant reinstatement with full back wages. However, it is open to the Court not to grant such relief and back wages may be refused to some extent and for that reliance can be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Vikramaditya Pandey v. Industrial Tribunal reported in 2001 SOL Case No.33. 21. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case and looking to the fact services of the petitioner were terminated through order dated 26.7.90 (Annex.13) and 12 years have passed now and further more during this period, the petitioner must have been serving somewhere or must have been earning, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice if ⅓rd of the back wages are allowed to the petitioner. 22. For the reasons mentioned above this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex.13) passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed and set aside. 22. For the reasons mentioned above this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex.13) passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed and set aside. However the petitioner is entitled to ⅓rd of the back wages.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.7.90 (Annex.13) passed by the respondent is set aside and the respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service as he then was on the date of termination of his services with ⅓rd back wages.Cost made easy.Petition allowed. *******