Judgment :- Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in Proceedings No.3495/R3/2001 dated 211. 2003. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Limited (SIDCO) on 16.02.1972. Firstly, he was promoted as Assistant and then as Superintendent. Subsequent to his promotion as Superintendent, Petitioner was posted as Store Keeper , Raw Material Depot, Guindy and he was working in that capacity from 25.06.1990 to 22.04.1992. Store Keeper is the sole custodian of the Invoice-cum-Delivery Challan and Stock Register. (ii) During his tenure as Store Keeper, shortage of 58.557 MTs valued at Rs.6.71 lakhs was noticed. Shortage was arrived after allowing 12.224 MTs. Since abnormal shortage of 58.557 MTs valued at Rs.6.71 lakhs was found, Petitioner was placed under suspension on 22.04.1992 and enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. After holding enquiry, Enquiry Officer reported that Petitioner who was then working as Store Keeper is wholly responsible for the shortgage of 58.557 MTs. In his report, Enquiry Officer observed that considering the length of service of the Writ Petitioner, 10% of value of shortage can be recovered from the Petitioner and therefore, 2nd Respondent has ordered recovery of Rs.67,115/-from the Petitioner. In addition, punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect was also awarded. (iii) While scrutinizing the shortage proposal and regularizing the shortage, by the impugned Proceedings dated 211. 2003, 2nd Respondent ordered recovery of Rs.4,15,786/- from the salary of the Petitioner who was then the Store Keeper of RMD, Guindy. (iv) According to the Petitioner for the shortage, already punishment of recovery of Rs.67,115/- and stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect was awarded and when the matter has reached finality, Petitioner cannot be punished twice for the same offence after nine long years. Alleging that the impugned Proceedings was passed just six months prior to his retirement and violation of principles of natural justice, Petitioner has filed Writ Petition challenging the Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 211. 2003. 3. Alleging that the impugned Proceedings was passed just six months prior to his retirement and violation of principles of natural justice, Petitioner has filed Writ Petition challenging the Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent dated 211. 2003. 3. Respondents filed counter contending that Petitioner has accepted that the caused loss to the Corporation to the tune of Rs.6,71,115/-and in order to recover the loss incurred by the Corporation which was due to the negligence of the Writ Petitioner and also to safeguard the interest of Corporation, the impugned Proceedings were issued. It is further averred that 2nd Respondent ordered to write off and adjust sum of Rs.2,07,052/- for 14.605 MTs and to recover the unallowable shortage of Rs.4,15,786/-for 27.306 MTs after deducting a sum of Rs.67,115/-. According to the Respondents, excess / shortage regularisation proposal is examined on case to case basis and any shortages will be recovered from the concerned employee of the Corporation after giving an opportunity to explain the reasons for excess / shortage of materials. It is the further case of the Respondents that the Petitioner could have made an appeal to the 2nd Respondent and even to the Board of Directors and the impugned order cannot be challenged. .4. Mr. S. Rajendrakumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that when the earlier Proceedings and punishment imposed had attained finality, Petitioner cannot be punished twice for the same offence after nine long years. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that Petitioner was already prosecuted and punished by way of order of the 1st Respondent. He cannot be punished twice for the same offence after nine long years just at the verge of retirement of the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would also submit that no opportunity was given to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order. 5. Contending that the order of recovery was made by the 2nd Respondent in the interest of Institution, Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel, learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that upon scrutinizing shortage regularization proposal, 2nd Respondent was empowered to pass orders for recovery of unallowable shortage. It was further submitted that admittedly, loss was caused by the Petitioner and in continuation of the earlier Proceedings while regularizing the shortage, 2nd Respondent has passed the order for recovery and the same is unassailable. .6. I have carefully examined the rival contentions and the materials on record. It was further submitted that admittedly, loss was caused by the Petitioner and in continuation of the earlier Proceedings while regularizing the shortage, 2nd Respondent has passed the order for recovery and the same is unassailable. .6. I have carefully examined the rival contentions and the materials on record. When the abnormal shortage of 58.557 MTs was noticed in 1992, charge was framed against the Petitioner for the alleged shortage of 58.557 MTs valued at Rs.6.71 lakhs and for the grave irregularity noticed on the part of the Petitioner during the period he worked as Store Keeper, Grade-I. Charges were framed and after the Petitioner submitted his explanation, regular enquiry was held. Enquiry Officer has reported that the individual is wholly responsible for the loss amounting to Rs.6,71,152.67 and suggested recovery of 10% of the value of shortage i.e. Rs.67,115/-and also stoppage of three future increments without cumulative effect. Report of the Enquiry Officer read thus:- ."The Enquiry Officer has reported that the individual is wholly responsible for the entire loss amounting to Rs.6,71,1567. To meet the ends of justice he has to be punished severally. However considering his length of service 10% of the value of shortage i.e., Rs.67,115/- (Rupees Sixty seven thousand one hundred and fifteen only) is ordered to be recovered from him.......... it is hereby ordered that a sum of Rs.250/- p.m. be recovered from his salary every month commencing from the salary for the month of September 1994 till his date of superannuation (or) till the whole sum of Rs.67,115/-is recovered duly from him whichever occurs early. ..... Further for the deriliction of duties the individuals next 3 future increments without cumulative effect is also ordered to be stopped. The period of suspension is treated as leave to which he is eligible." 7. As per the report of Enquiry Officer, Petitioner has submitted letter of undertaking stating that in case of resignation from SIDCO or in case of his termination from SIDCO, 10% of the value may be recovered from his terminal benefits. 8. After the report of Enquiry Officer, by Proceedings No.20397/EA3/94 dated 011. 1994 suspension was revoked and the Petitioner was reinstated in service and his period of suspension was regularized as indicated thereon. By the Proceedings No.20397/EA3/94 dated 03.01.1995, final order was passed indicating mode of stoppage of increment and that his punishment will be completed on 01.01.1997. 8. After the report of Enquiry Officer, by Proceedings No.20397/EA3/94 dated 011. 1994 suspension was revoked and the Petitioner was reinstated in service and his period of suspension was regularized as indicated thereon. By the Proceedings No.20397/EA3/94 dated 03.01.1995, final order was passed indicating mode of stoppage of increment and that his punishment will be completed on 01.01.1997. However, order was passed on 10.01.1995 stating that subsistence allowance already paid to him would be adjusted against the leave salary and waiving the excess subsistence allowance of Rs.288/- paid to the Petitioner. 9. Petitioner continued to work as Superintendent. In the year 1999, by the Proceedings No.21738/A2/99 dated 011. 1999, Petitioner was also promoted as Development Officer and posted at Vichoor. Evidently, enquiry Proceedings and order of recovery of Rs.67,115/- and punishment imposed are reached finality. 10. While so, the impugned Proceedings was passed by the 2nd Respondent while scrutinizing the proposal for regularisation of shortage of Iron and Steel materials found in respect of the materials handled by the Petitioner. While scrutinizing the same, 2nd Respondent has ordered recovery of unallowable shortage of 27.306 MTs at Rs.4,15,786/-. Recovery was ordered from the salary of Petitioner after allowing 1/3rd of carry home salary every month upto his retirement and thereafter, balance in full from his retirement benefits. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, for the same shortage already disciplinary proceedings were initiated and reached finality and while so, the Petitioner cannot be punished twice for the same of delinquency. More so, when the Petitioner has not been heard and no opportunity was afforded to him. .11. It is fairly well settled that if a person has been prosecuted for the same offence previously he cannot be prosecuted for it again, irrespective of whether he was found guilty in the earlier enquiry. Constitution forbids double jeopardy. Thus if a proper enquiry has been held, and finding given in that enquiry whether of guilt or innocence, no power is left with the Government to hold again a second enquiry on the same charges. 12. When the matter has reached finality and when the Petitioner was also awarded punishment, it is not open to the authorities to re-open the issue again. That too without issuing show cause notice asking him why shortage amount should not be recovered from him. 12. When the matter has reached finality and when the Petitioner was also awarded punishment, it is not open to the authorities to re-open the issue again. That too without issuing show cause notice asking him why shortage amount should not be recovered from him. Where the disciplinary proceedings has reached finality, ordering recovery with respect to the same shortage is not permissible. Petitioner having been found guilty and punishment was also awarded on him, there cannot be an order of recovery for the same shortage and therefore, the impugned Proceedings cannot be sustained. 13. In the result, the impugned Proceedings No.3495/R3/2001 dated 211. 2003 is quashed and this Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents shall disburse all retiral benefits to the Petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of this Order. Respondents shall also process the pension papers, if any pension is payable to the Petitioner.