Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the C.R.P.F., in August, 1975. While being posted in Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat a departmental inquiry was conducted against him relating to certain charges and he was awarded punishment of 12 days of imprisonment in quarter-guard from 4.7.1984 to 15.7.1984 and all pay and allowances for the said period were forfeited. He was also sentenced to `packdrill. These sentences were executed in July itself. 2. After suffering the aforesaid punishments petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 27.1.1986 by respondent No. 3 proposing to award the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year in the time scale of his pay without future effect in addition to the punishment already awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 4.7.1984. Petitioner was asked to show- cause against the proposed enhancement of punishment and also provided an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed penalty. The petitioner submitted his reply. However, the respondent No. 3 issued another show-cause notice dated 1.12.1986 proposing to further enhance the punishment and penalty of removal from service was proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner. Petition was again provided opportunity of making representation. Petitioner again submitted his detailed reply, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. 3. Respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 4.5.1987, however, ordered removal of the petitioner from service while imposing punishment vide the aforesaid order. Respondent No. 3 has stated that charge No. 2 proved against the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 has observed that the petitioner could not give any single cogent reason against the proposed show cause notice and accordingly the punishment of removal from service has been ordered. 4. Petitioner challenged the punishment imposed upon him in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, he being a resident of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. A copy of the writ petition filed in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. This writ petition was, however, disposed of by the said High Court as not maintainable, order impugned having been passed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid High Court and petitioner was given liberty to approach the competent court vide order dated 29.3.1989. This writ petition was, however, disposed of by the said High Court as not maintainable, order impugned having been passed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the aforesaid High Court and petitioner was given liberty to approach the competent court vide order dated 29.3.1989. It appears that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Inspector General, C.R.P.F. A copy of they memorandum of appeal has been placed on record as Annexure P-8. 5. The petitioner has now filed the present petition challenging the order of his removal from service. The petitioner has challenged this order primarily on the ground that he was already awarded the punishment of imprisonment and forfeiture of one increment as also the `packdrill. The said punishments having been inflicted upon the petitioner and sentence executed, respondent were not entitled to enhance the punishment or impose any other punishment upon the petitioner. 6. The respondent in their reply filed before this Court have defended the impugned order (Annexure P-5) on the basis of the power allegedly exercised under Rule 29 (d) of the Armed Forces - Central Reserve Police Force Act 1949. It is contended that at the time of inspection of Group Center C.R.P.F., Gandhi Nagar, Gujrat, Inspector General, C.R.P.F. observed in his inspection note that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was very lenient and ordered the case to be reviewed by the Deputy Inspector General, C.R.P.F. and accordingly in exercise of his power of review under Rule 29 (d) of the said rules a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for enhancement of the punishment i.e. stoppage of increment for a period of one year in addition to the punishment already awarded to the petitioner by the Commandant, Group Centre, C.R.P.F. in Gandhi Nagar. It is further stated that since the aforesaid punishment was also found not to be commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, another show cause notice dated 1.12.1986 was issued proposing to impose the penalty of removal from service. After considering the representation of the petitioner the punishment of removal stands awarded to the petitioner, who could not give single cogent reason against the proposed punishment. 7. After considering the representation of the petitioner the punishment of removal stands awarded to the petitioner, who could not give single cogent reason against the proposed punishment. 7. The only question which has been urged and argued during the course of hearing is whether the authorities could impose additional punishment by way of enhancement in exercise of the alleged power of review under Rule 29 of the C.R.P.F., Rules when the sentence awarded stood executed. 8. Admittedly, the Commandant was the competent authority to impose the punishment. The punishment of 12 days of imprisonment in quarter-guard coupled with forteiture of pay and allowance for the period of quarter-guard i.e. 4.7.1984 to 15.7.1984 as also the sentence of `packdrill was awarded to the petitioner by the Commandant on conclusion of inquiry, accepting the inquiry report. This sentence was imposed vide order dated 4.7.1984 and sentence executed on the same day. The respondent issued the show-cause notice for enhancement of the punishment on 27.1.1986 i.e. after a period of more than 1 years proposing to impose further punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year. However, this additional punishment was never imposed and after a lapse of labour one year thereafter another show-cause notice dated 1.12.1986 was issued to further enhance the punishment proposed therein i.e. the removal from service. Rules governing appeal and revision i.e. extracts of Rules 28 and 29 are reproduced hereunder :- "28. Appeals-(a) Every Subordinate Officer or every officer of any other rank below him including an enrolled follower, against whom an order under serial numbers 1 to 4 of the Table in Rule 27 or under clauses (d) and (e) of section 13 is passed is entitled to prefer one appeal against such order to the Inspector General, if the original order was passed by the Deputy Inspector General and to the Deputy Inspector General if the original order was passed by the Commandant. (e) An appeal which is not filed within 30 days of the date of the original order, exclusive of the time taken to obtain a copy of the order of recorded, shall be barred by limitation. 29. Revision-(a) A member of the Force whose appeal has been rejected by a competent authority may be prefer petition for revision to the next Superior Authority. 29. Revision-(a) A member of the Force whose appeal has been rejected by a competent authority may be prefer petition for revision to the next Superior Authority. The power of revision may be exercised only when in consequence of some material irregularity, there has been injustice or mis- carriage of justice or fresh evidence is disclosed. (b) The procedure prescribed for appeals under sub-rules (c) to (g) or rule 28 shall apply mutatis mutandis to petition for revision. (c) An appellate authority while passing orders on a revision petition may at its discretion enhance punishment : Provided that before enhancing the punishment the accused shall be given an opportunity to show-cause why his punishment should not be enhanced : Provided further than an order enhancing the punishment shall be treated as an original order for the purpose of appeal, except when such an order has been passed by the Govt. in which case no further appeal shall lie. Against such an order passed by the Deputy Inspector General appeal shall lie to the Inspector General and by the Inspector General to the to the central Govt. (d) The Inspector General or the Deputy Inspector General may call for the records of awards of any punishment and confirm, enhance, modify or annual the same, or make or direct further investigation to be made before passing such orders : Provided that in a case in which it is proposed to enhance punishment, the accused shall be given an opportunity to show-cause either orally or in writing as to why his punishment should not he enhanced" 9. A personnel of C.R.P.F., who is awarded punishment has a right of appeal under Rule 28 of the C.R.P.F. Rules. Only the subordinate officer or an enrolled officer, who is awarded punishment in terms of Rule 27 is entitled to prefer an appeal to the Inspector General, if the original order was passed by the Deputy Inspector General and to the Deputy Inspector General if the original order was passed by the Commandant. In the present case the punishment was awarded by the Commandant and thus, Deputy Inspector General was the Appellate Authority. Rule 29 of the aforesaid rules further make provision for revision. Under Rule 29 (a) a member of the force whose appeal has been rejected is entitled to prefer a petition for revision to the next superior authority. In the present case the punishment was awarded by the Commandant and thus, Deputy Inspector General was the Appellate Authority. Rule 29 of the aforesaid rules further make provision for revision. Under Rule 29 (a) a member of the force whose appeal has been rejected is entitled to prefer a petition for revision to the next superior authority. However, under clause (d) of the aforesaid rules the Inspector General or Deputy Inspector General have also been conferred with the power to call for the records of award of any punishment and confirm, enhance, modify or annual the same or direct further investigation to be made before passing any such order. 10. As noticed herein above, it is only the delinquent official, who has been awarded the punishment is entitled to prefer an appeal, if, any of the punishments indicated from serial Nos. 1 to 4 of the table of rule 27 (d), (e) of section 13 of the Armed Forces-Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 is passed against any such officer. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner does fall under section 13 (d) of the Act. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal. Under Rule 29-A an officer, whose appeal is rejected has further right to prefer a petition for revision to the next supererior authority. However, admittedly the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the award of punishment. Clause (d) of Rule 29 confers the power upon the Inspector General or the Deputy Inspector General to suo motto call for the records of any punishment awarded and pass any order to confirm, enhance modify annul or even order for further investigation. Under proviso to clause (d) in case the competent authority proposes to enhance punishment the accused is to be given an opportunity to show-cause against the proposed punishment. It is this provision of law which has been invoked by the respondents to enhance the punishment in case of the petitioner. No doubt two show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner after the original punishment was awarded by the Commandant. Vide his first show-cause notice dated 27.11.1986 additional punishment of forfeiture of one annual increment was proposed in addition to the punishment already awarded. No action was taken on this show-cause notice and after expiry of almost one year another show cause notice dated 1.12.1986 was issued proposing to impose the punishment of removal from service. Vide his first show-cause notice dated 27.11.1986 additional punishment of forfeiture of one annual increment was proposed in addition to the punishment already awarded. No action was taken on this show-cause notice and after expiry of almost one year another show cause notice dated 1.12.1986 was issued proposing to impose the punishment of removal from service. After receiving the reply the punishment of removal from service inflicted vide the impugned order dated 4.5.1987. 11. From the reading of the sub-clause (d) of Rule 29.1 it appears that the Inspector General or the Deputy Inspector General has the power to call for the records of award of any punishment and deal with the same. This power could be exercised suo motto as well. The only embarge upon the exercise of power to impose the punishment is issuance of a show-cause notice to provide opportunity of being heard to the delinquent official, where the authority proposes to enhance the punishment. In the present case the authority proposed enhancement of punishment. It is specific case of the respondents that it was only during the inspection conducted by the Inspector General observed that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was too light and he decided to impose a deterrent punishment. It appears that the Inspector General promoted the Deputy Inspector General to impose a harsher punishment. The Deputy Inspector General in his wisdom issued the show-cause notice dated 27.1.1986 (Annexure P-1) in exercise of power the under Rule 29 (d) proposing to impose additional punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year which proposal was never carried out. After expiry of about one year another show- cause notices was issued by the same auhority further proposing to impose the penalty of removal from service. In both the show-cause notices it is stated that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is too lenient and not commensurate to the offence. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply and pleaded that he has already been imposed a punishment and sentence stands executed and thus second punishment is not permissible and is violative of the constitutional right of the petitioner, guaranteed under respondent No. 3 has not dealt with the pleas raised by the petitioner and the only ground for rejection of the reply is that there is no cogent reason. As a matter of fact respondent No. 3 was under obligation to record reasons for enhancement rather than rejecting the reply with a non-speaking, unreasoned expression referred to above. It was the duty of the authority to have recorded valid reasons for enhancement of the punishment. The impugned order does not disclose any such reason much less an legal, dispute plausible and valid reason justifying the enhancement. Even though, the power to suo motu revise the punishment including enhancement, has to be considered by the Inspector General or the Deputy Inspector General in terms of Rule 29(d), however, such power cannot be allowed to be exercised in the arbitrary manner as has been done in the present case. Such power could be exercised before the sentence awarded is executed. In the present case the sentence awarded by the Commandant, who was the competent authority had been executed and the petitioner had undergone the imprisonment as also suffered the forfeiture of the pay and allowances and has also undergone `packdrill. Thereafter, the decision to impose the further penalty is not enhancement of the penalty but another penalty. The first show- cause notice dated 27.1.1986 clearly refers to additional punishment. In case of enhancement of the punishment, the original is to be replaced and substituted by a harsher punishment, whereas proposal to award another punishment, where one punishment already stands awarded and executed amounts to imposing two punishment and the comes within the mischief of double jeopardy. Article 20 of the Constitution of India provides certain protection even to the convicts. The said article is reproduced hereunder :- "20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences - (1) No person shall be convicted of any offence expect for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punishment for the same offence more than once. (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." 12. Clause 2 of Article 20 clearly prohibits two punishments for the same offence. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punishment for the same offence more than once. (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." 12. Clause 2 of Article 20 clearly prohibits two punishments for the same offence. In the present case, admittedly, two punishments have been awarded to the petitioner one for imprisonment coupled with forfeiture of pay and allowances and `packdrill and the other the removal from service. Had the authorities enhanced the punishment prior to implementation of the first award of the punishment, it could have been justified in terms of Rule 29(d). But the first punishment having been enforced and implemented, it was not permissible to have imposed second punishment, which is the extreme punishment when the petitioner had already undergone the imprisonment and other related punishments imposed upon him. There is another reason to quash the impugned order. The first punishment was awarded on 4.7.1984 and executed at the same time. The first show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner after 1 years and the second show-cause notice after about 2 years. No reasons have been disclosed by the respondents for such a long delay in initiating proceedings for enhancement of the punishment. This speaks of the total arbitrariness, whims and fancy of the respondents. The impugned order is not justified under any circumstances. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was due, to retire on 4.5.1987. Thus, the petitioner was entitled to continue till he attained the age of superannuation. 13. This petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits and since he has already attained the age of superannuation, he will be entitled to salary and all other benefits till the date of his retirement and the pensionary benefits thereafter.