ORDER 1. HEAD CONSTABLE NARINDER SINGH, FOR SHORT THE RESPONDENT, WAS APPOINTED A CONSTABLE IN THE DELHI POLICE ON 22-12-1982. HE WAS PROMOTED OUT OF TURN UNDER RULE 19(II) OF THE DELHI POLICE PROMOTION AND CONFIRMATION RULES, 1980 FOR SHOWING OUTSTANDING DEVOTION TO DUTY. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE YEAR 1990 DISCIPLINARY ACTION WAS INITIATED AGAINST HIM FOR DERELICTION OF DUTY WHICH CULMINATED IN THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF REDUCTION OF PAY BY ONE STAGE WITHOUT CUMULATIVE EFFECT APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER WAS DISMISSED. THEREAFTER, THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY ISSUED A SECOND SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ON 8-1-1992 PROPOSING TO REMOVE HIS NAME FROM THE PROMOTION LIST TO WHICH HE WAS BROUGHT UNDER THE ABOVE RULES. 2. AGGRIEVED BY THE PROPOSED ACTION THE RESPONDENT FILED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, FOR SHORT THE TRIBUNAL, SEEKING QUASHING OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE PETITION AND HELD THAT SECOND SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE PUNISHMENT BASED ON THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION AND ACCORDINGLY QUASHED THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. THE DELHI ADMINISTRATION HAS COME UP IN THE APPEAL. 3. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN HEARD. 4. READING OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE SUGGESTS AS IF IT IS IN CONTINUATION OF THE DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS. LACK OF DEVOTION TO DUTY IS MENTIONED AS THE REASON FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS AS WELL. THE SECOND PROPOSED ACTION BASED ON THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION PROPOSING TO DENY PROMOTION OR REVERSION IS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE H IMPUGNED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. SECOND PENALTY BASED ON THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY. THE TRIBUNAL WAS, THEREFORE, RIGHT IN LAW IN ANNULLING SUCH AN ACTION. WE ARE NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE AMBIT OR SCOPE OF ANY RULE. 5. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL AND DISMISS THE SAME WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.