JUDGMENT 1. - Having been terminated from the service vide order dated 19.11.1984, having the said order confirmed by the appellate order dated 10.02.1986, the appellant-petitioner herein had filed a writ petition before this . However, vide judgment dated 26.02.1997, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and has confirmed the aforesaid orders. Hence, the appeal before this Court. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that the appellant was appointed as a patwari on temporary basis vide order dated 16.10.1976. Subsequently, the appellant appeared in the Patwar Examination. He cleared the said examination on 4.1.1979. After passing the said examination, the appellant was entitled for being appointed as a Patwari on a regular basis. However, instead of regularly being appointed as a patwari, vide order dated 24.4.1979 his services were terminated on the ground that his services were not found to be satisfactory. Despite the termination of his service, the appellant again appeared for the Patwar Examination. He was again considered on the said post and vide order dated 24.05.1979, he was again appointed on the post of patwari. While the appellant was working as a patwari, on 19.5.1983, a memorandum was served upon him, informing him that an inquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 is contemplated against him. According to the charges, while the appellant was serving as a patwari, in the year 1976, he concealed the fact that he was a Government employee and allotted the land measuring sixteen biswas of Khasra No. 615 and land measuring six bigha nine biswa of Khasra No. 616 in his favour on 10.11.1976. Subsequently, the said allotment was cancelled by the Additional Collector. Kota vide order dated 27.11.1978. However, despite the allotment being cancelled by the Additional Collector, the appellant did not vacate the said land and kept the said land in his possession. After following the procedure for holding the disciplinary inquiry, vide order dated 19.11.1984, the appellant's services were terminated. The appellant filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. But, vide order dated 10.02.1986, the Board of Revenue rejected the said appeal. Since the appellant has aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.1984, and the order dated 10.02.1986, he filed a writ petition before this . The appellant filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue. But, vide order dated 10.02.1986, the Board of Revenue rejected the said appeal. Since the appellant has aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.1984, and the order dated 10.02.1986, he filed a writ petition before this . However, vide judgment dated 26.02.1997, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the impugned orders as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal before this . 3. Mr. Jai Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that the appellant's services were terminated twice on the same ground. Therefore, the doctrine of double jeopardy is applicable in his is case. Hence, the order of removal from service dated 19.11.1984 is illegal. Moreover, while passing the impugned order dated 10.02.1986, the Board of Revenue has overlooked this aspect of the case. Therefore, the order dated 10.02.1986 is legally untenable. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, have perused the impugned judgment and orders and have examined the record of the case. 5. A bare perusal of the order dated 24th April, 1979 clearly reveals that it is an order of termination of service simplicitor. The said order has been passed solely on the ground that the services of the appellant is found to be unsatisfactory. Hence, there is no evidence to prove that it is an order, which has been passed because of the alleged misconduct committed by the appellant during his tenure as a patwari on an ad-hoc basis. Thus, the said order is not based on any misconduct alleged to have been committed by the appellant. 6. On the other hand, a bare perusal of the order dated 19.11.1984 clearly reveals that once the charges were proved in the disciplinary inquiry, the order of removal from service was passed. Since, the procedure for holding the disciplinary inquiry has been followed, the order dated 19.11.1984 does not suffer from any illegality. 7. A bare perusal of the order dated 24th April, 1979 and the order dated 19.11.1984 clearly reveal that while the former order is based on unsatisfactory performance of service, the later order is based on misconduct proved to be committed by the appellant. Therefore, the basis for terminating the service of the appellant on two different occasions are different. Both the orders of termination, mentioned above, arise from different reasons. Therefore, the basis for terminating the service of the appellant on two different occasions are different. Both the orders of termination, mentioned above, arise from different reasons. Therefore, the doctrine of double jeopardy is clearly inapplicable in the present case. For, the appellant has not been punished on the basis of same fact. 8. In the result, this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******