T. Nandakumar Singh, J.;- In the given case the question falls for con­sideration is:- Is simultaneous proceedings one under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and another under the Army Act 1950 and Rules, 1954 against the present petitioner for the same incident/for the same act double jeop­ardy as provided under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. This Court also is of the considered view that the present question is already answered by the decisions of the Apex Court in (1) R. Viswan & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.: (1983) 3 SCC 401 (Constitution Bench) and (2) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Sunil Kumar Sarkar: AIR 2001 SC1092 in the light of the facts and reasons discussed in the following paras. 2. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S. N. Meitei, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Sans unnecessary details, the short fact sufficient for deciding the present question is briefly noted:- the petitioner was initially ap­pointed as LDC on 29.8.1996 and thereaf­ter he was confirmed in the post of LDC w.e.f. 1.9.2000 in the service of GREF. While the petitioner was serving as UDC, the respon­dents issued an order being No. 60314/510 SS & TC/36 BRTF (P) Pushpak for the pur­pose of investigating into the circumstances under which certain irregularities were found in the ACRs & PA/Impress Account in re­spect of 510 SS & TC/36 BRTF (P) Pushpak. For those irregularities, the respon­dents initiated Court of inquiry vide order No. 60314/510 SS & TC/DGBR/07 Nig dated 20.6.2008 issued by the Sr. Administrative Officer, Jt. Dir (Vig) for Director General Border Roads. Under the said order the com­position of the Court of inquiry for the said irregularities against the present writ petitioner are:- Presiding Officer - One Col members 1) - One Lt. Col/Major 2) - One Major/Capt. 4. It is admitted case of both the parties that under the SRO No. 329, dated 23rd Sept. 1960, which was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and (4) of Section 4 of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) by the Central Government, the Army Act, 1950 except those mentioned in Schedule A subject to the modifications set forth in Schedule B, applies to General Re-IP served Engineering Force. 1960, which was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and (4) of Section 4 of the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) by the Central Government, the Army Act, 1950 except those mentioned in Schedule A subject to the modifications set forth in Schedule B, applies to General Re-IP served Engineering Force. Therefore, it is the admitted case of both the parties that save and except the sections mentioned in schedule a to the said SRO 329, the Army Act a Rules apply to the General Reserved engineering Force and also that BRTF is a part of the GREF and also that the petitioner is a member of the BRTF/GREF. It is also admit­ted by both the parties that CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is also applicable to the member of the GREF/BRTF. 5. Basing on the report of the Court of enquiry, composition of which are mentioned in the said order dated 20.6.08, the Director General, Border Road passed an order be­ing No. 60314/510 SS & TC/DGBR/06/Vig dated 18th Dec. 2008 for drawing up disci­plinary proceeding under Rule the misappro­priation of Impress/Government money to the tune of Rs. 5,51,100/- (Rupees five lakh fifty, one thousand one hundred only) and call upon the writ petitioner to pay Rs. 5,51,100/- (Ru­pees five lakh fifty one thousand one hundred only) to make good the loss caused to various personnel against whose IRLAs he could manage the said misappropriation of money. In the event of his being unwilling to pay the amount, he should forward his reasons, for which further action be taken under Section 91(g) of Army Act, 1950. For easy reference the said order of the Director General, Border Road is quoted hereunder: "Orders of Director General Border Roads on the Court of Enquiry Proceedings held to investigate the circumstances under which ir­regularities found in the paid acquittance rolls/impress account of personnel of 510 SS & TC/36 BRTF(P) Pushpak. 1. I partially agree with the findings/opinion of the Court and recommendations of the Chief Engineer (Project) Pushpak. 2. GS-178495Y UDC Ganesh Thakur, while functioning as E5 Section In-Charge, of 510 SS & TC/36 BRTF Project Pushpak w.e.f. Jan 2005 to Apr 2008, had indulged in misappropriation of Government/imprest money, to the tune of Rs. 1. I partially agree with the findings/opinion of the Court and recommendations of the Chief Engineer (Project) Pushpak. 2. GS-178495Y UDC Ganesh Thakur, while functioning as E5 Section In-Charge, of 510 SS & TC/36 BRTF Project Pushpak w.e.f. Jan 2005 to Apr 2008, had indulged in misappropriation of Government/imprest money, to the tune of Rs. 5,61,100/- (Rupees five lakh sixty one thou­sand one hundred only) for his personal gain by manipulating/falsifying important financial documents like IRLA Register, Acquittance Rolls and GREF Personal pay books in respect of various GREF personnel of the said unit. He could manage such huge misappropriation of money and manipulation of financial documents due to the laxity of supervisory officials in the chain of command as well as the paying offic­ers who were detailed for disbursement of sala­ries from time to time. 3.1 therefore, order the following:- (a) Disciplinary action under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 be taken against GS-178495 Y UDC Ganesh Thakur for misappropriation of Imprest/Government money to the tune of Rs. 5,51,100/- (Rupees five lakh fifty one thousand one hundred only), by placing excess demand/drawal of pay over and above the actual entitle­ments of personnel, by manipulating unit IRLA Register, paid Acquaintance Rolls and GREF Personal pay books in respect of personnel posted in 510 SS & TC (GREF) for his personal gain. (b) A sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thou­sand only) drawn excess by UDC Ganesh Thakur as per acquaintance roll dated 30 Jun 2005 and 28 Feb 2006 (Rs. 5000/- each) held in record with 510 SS & TC (GREF) be got debited from his IRLA by RAO (GREF). (c) GS-178495Y UDC Ganesh Thakur be called upon to pay Rs. 5,51,100/- (Rupees five lakh fifty one thousand one hundred only) by the present OC, 510 SS & TC (GREF) to make good the loss caused to various personnel against whose IRLAs he could manage the said misappropriation of money. In the event of his being unwilling to pay the amount he should forward his reasons, for which further action be taken under Section 91 (g) of Army Act, 1950. (d) On realization of Rs. In the event of his being unwilling to pay the amount he should forward his reasons, for which further action be taken under Section 91 (g) of Army Act, 1950. (d) On realization of Rs. 5,51,100/- (Rupees five lakh fifty one thousand one hundred only) from Shri Ganesh Thakur, the said amount should be deposited into the Government Trea­sury by means of Treasury Receipt in favour of CDA (BR) for adjustment in respective IRLAs of personnel as per list at Appendix attached. (e) Disciplinary action under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 be taken against GO-2465Y Adm Officer (now Sr. Adm. Officer) J.N. Gaur and GO-3217P Asst. Adm. Officer Ravindra Kumar, for not exercising proper supervision and vigil while demanding/disbursing pay and allowances of personnel of 510 SS & TC (GREF), not initiating proper checks and scrutiny of paid Acquaintance Rolls, its summary and entries in pay books while signing them from time to time and entrustment of Government/Impress money to unauthorized personnel for disbursement, leading to manipulation of important financial documents and misappropriation of Govern­ment money by UDC Ganesh Thakur. (f) Warning letter be issued to IC-55297M Maj (now Lt. Col) Neeraj Ratta by Chief Engi­neer (P) Pushpak for not exercising proper su­pervision and vigil over his subordinates lead­ing to manipulation of financial documents and misappropriation of Government money by UDC Ganesh. (g) GS-124004A Asstt. SPSharmaandGS-179456M Supvr NT-I HC Goyari have already retired from Government service. Since their in­volvement in the incident is not grave enough to deal under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and issue of written warning or performance counseling to them at this stage has no mean­ing, hence no action need be taken against them. (h) Comprehensive instructions be issued by the CE (P) Pushpak to all units under his command and control for strict compliance of GREF Impress Pay Instructions. Simultaneously efforts be made to commence disbursement of pay and allowances to all personnel through bank, to avoid recurrence of such incidents in future. Sd/-(A.K.Nanda) Lt. Gen. Director General Border Roads 60314/510 SS&TC/DGBR/06Nig Dte General Border Roads Seema Sadak Bhawan Ring Road, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi-10. 18 Dec. 2008 Distributions:- 1. HQ CE(P)Pushpak,PIN-931711,C/O 99 APO 2. HQ DGBR/E1E 3. Case file." 6. Sd/-(A.K.Nanda) Lt. Gen. Director General Border Roads 60314/510 SS&TC/DGBR/06Nig Dte General Border Roads Seema Sadak Bhawan Ring Road, Delhi Cantt. New Delhi-10. 18 Dec. 2008 Distributions:- 1. HQ CE(P)Pushpak,PIN-931711,C/O 99 APO 2. HQ DGBR/E1E 3. Case file." 6. After passing the said order by the Di­rector General, Border Road dated 18.12.08 for taking up simultaneous proceedings, i.e. one under the CCS (CCA) Rules and another under the Army Act and Rules against the petitioner for the same incident, the re­spondent No. 2, i.e. Chief Engineer issued the impugned Memorandum dated 13.3.09 for holding disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for the 5(five) Article of Charges mentioned therein. 7. On perusal of the said Memorandum dated 13.3.09 for holding disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 it is clear that the Article of Charges are for the same incident for which the respondents had already conducted the Court of enquiry and on the basis of its report, said order had been passed directing the petitioner to deposit sum of Rs. 5,51,100/- and in the event of his being un­willing to pay, he should forward the reason for which further action be taken under Sec­tion 19(g) of the Army Act, 1950. In such a situation it is the case of the petitioner that initiation of the disciplinary proceeding under the impugned Memorandum dated 13.3.09 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is barred by Art. 20(2) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it will amount to double jeopardy for the simple reason that for the same incident the authority concerned had already initiated Court of inquiry and bas­ing on its report, the Chief Engineer (Project), Director General, Border Road had already passed the said order directing the petitioner to deposit sum of Rs. 5,51,100/- for the al­leged misappropriation. 8. Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, places heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in Shri S. Rengarajan Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed in WP(C)No. 1445 of 2009, a copy of which is made available by the learned counsel for the petitioner for perusal by the Court. 9. Union of India & Ors. passed in WP(C)No. 1445 of 2009, a copy of which is made available by the learned counsel for the petitioner for perusal by the Court. 9. On perusal of the said judgment and order of this Court in Rengarajan's case (supra), it is clear that this Court in an unequivo­cal term held that in case two concurrent pro­ceedings are initiated against the same indi­vidual, i.e. one under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and another under the Army Act and Rules, it is not permissible under the law switching over from one authority to another. Therefore, what has been held by this Court in Rengarajan's case (supra) was that once the proceeding is started under either of the two prescribed procedures applicable to the individual, there cannot be switching over from one authority to another. For easy ref­erence, para 12 and 19 of the judgment in Rengarajan's case (supra) are quoted hereunder: "12. Opening the argument, the petitioner appearing in person has contended the follow­ing points: a) The vigilance team of Project Pushpak has seized a sum of Rs. 1,09,344/-on 12.06.92 from the petitioner after conducting the Court of inquiry under the Army Act and the Rules and accordingly put him under suspension with effect from 27.07.92 by the order of DGBR on the basis of Court of inquiry and the disciplin­ary action initiated against him under the Army Act and as the trial under Army Act was ruled out by the competent authority being time barred case, charge memo under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was issued which is not per­missible under the law being switched over from one authority under the Army Act to another authority under CCS (CCA) Rules. 1965. b) During the inquiry the presenting officer has failed to prove the possession of amount of Rs. 1,09,344/- was obtained by illegal means though the amount seized was duly accounted for, which was not rebutted by the presenting officer and therefore the charge held to be proved is not sustainable requiring interference. c) The penalty of dismissal from service was awarded on the basis of preliminary inquiry, which is not admissible under the law, more­over, there was lack of evidence in the prelimi­nary enquiry and as such the award of dismissal from service requires interference. c) The penalty of dismissal from service was awarded on the basis of preliminary inquiry, which is not admissible under the law, more­over, there was lack of evidence in the prelimi­nary enquiry and as such the award of dismissal from service requires interference. d) The vital witnesses Shri Bholanath Pathak and Shri Abdul Rouf, who were examined at the preliminary inquiry were not made available in the disciplinary inquiry for cross-examination and the witness Shri D.S. Giri had retracted his statement in the preliminary inquiry and the witness Shri Bholanath Pathak had also given another statement during the course of sum­mary of evidence thus retracting his previous statement and the presenting officer failed to produce the witnesses as shown in the list along with the charge memo dated 12.12.95 and on the basis of statement recorded during the pre­liminary inquiry the inquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charge 1 and 11 have been proved which require interference to up­hold the administrative fair play in action in the matter of disciplinary proceeding. e) The order affirming the award of dismissal from service imposed by the disciplinary au­thority lacks application of mind while dispos­ing the statutory appeal preferred under Rule 23 of the CCS (CCA) Rules by the appellate authority which violates Rule 27 (2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules requiring interference with in the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. In the instant case admittedly the Court of inquiry was held under the Army Act and the petitioner was alleged to have been confessed to the Investigating Officer in presence of an independent witness on 18.06.92 that he accu­mulated the money by selling government stores to civilians and the said confessional statement was used as a part of disciplinary proceedings initiated under CCS (CCA) Rules, though the independent witness Lt. Col. R. K. Guha in whose presence the confessional statement al­leged to have been made was not a witness before the inquiry officer and therefore it can be safely held that the entire disciplinary pro­ceeding is vitiated since the matter was switched over from the purview of Army Act to CCS (CCA) Rules and accordingly answered in positive and against the respondents." 10. As stated above, this Court in Rengaraj art's case (supra) had not decided the question posed in the present writ peti­tion as to whether simultaneous proceedings, i.e. one under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and another under the Army Act and Rules against the writ petitioner for the same inci­dent would amount to double jeopardy as provided under Art. 20 (2) of the Constitu­tion of India. 11. The Apex Court in R. Viswan's case (supra), vide para 13 of the SCC, held that application of the Army Act and Rules to the member of the GREF vide S.R.O. 329 will not result overlapping between the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the provi­sions of Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 for that in the first place the nature of proceeding, which may be taken under the CCS (CCA) Rules against the erring em­ployee, is different from the nature of the pro­ceeding which may be taken against him un­der the provisions of Army Act, 1950 read with Army Rules, 1954, the former being dis­ciplinary in character while the latter being clearly penal in nature. 12. It is clear from the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in R. Viswan's case (supra) that the proceeding under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for the same incident against the same individual/employee is not overlapping inasmuch as the said two proceedings are for the different purposes inasmuch as the disci­plinary proceeding under the CCS (CCA) Rules is purely disciplinary in character while the proceeding under the Army Act and Rules is penal in nature. Para 13 of the SCC in R. Viswan's case (supra) read as follows: "13. There was also one other contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners and it raised a question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Para 13 of the SCC in R. Viswan's case (supra) read as follows: "13. There was also one other contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners and it raised a question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The contention was that the members of GREF were governed both by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 in matters of the discipline and therefore when­ever a member of GREF was charged with mis­conduct amounting to an offence under the Army Act, 1950, it was left to the unguided and unfettered discretion of the authorities whether to proceed against the employee under the Cen­tral Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 or under the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 and SROs Nos. 329 and 330 applying the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 to members of GREF for purposes of discipline were there­fore discriminatory and violative of Article 14. We do not think there is any substance in this contention. In the first place, the nature of the proceedings which may be taken under the Cen­tral Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 against an erring employee is different from the nature of the proceedings which may be taken against him under the pro­visions of the Army Act, 1950 read with the Army Rules, 1954, the former being disciplinary in character while the latter being clearly penal. It is significant to note that Section 20 of the Army Act, 1950 which deals with dismissal, removal or reduction of any person subject to that Act and clauses (d), (e), (0, (g) and (k) of Section 71 which provide for punishment of cashiering, dismissal, reduction in rank, forfeiture of senior­ity and forfeiture of pay and allowances, have not been made applicable to the members of GREF by SRO No. 329 with the result that, so far as disciplinary proceedings are concerned, there is no overlapping between the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the provi­sions of the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 as applied to the members of GREF. Sec­ondly, it is not possible to say that the discre­tion vested in the authorities whether to take action against an erring member of GREF under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 or under the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 is unguided or uncanalised. It has been denied in the affidavit of Lt. Col. Shergill that unguided discretionary power is vested in the disciplinary authority to proceed against an employee of GREF either under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 or the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 to switch over from one proceeding to the other at any stage. Lt. Col. Shergill has stated positively in his affidavit that clear and detailed administra­tive guidelines have been laid down for the purpose of guiding the disciplinary authority in exercising its discretion whether to take ac­tion against an employee of GREF under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 or the Army Act, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 and these guidelines have been set out in full in Annexure R-5 to his affidavit. Thirdly, the decision in Northern In­dia Caterers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab: AIR 1967 SC 1581 on which the contention of the petitioners is based has been overruled by this Court in Maganlal Chhaganlal (P) Ltd. Vs. Mu­nicipal Corporation of Greater Bombay: AIR 1974 SC 2009 where it has been held that (SCC p. 422, para 14) "the contention that the mere availability of two procedures will vitiate one of them, that is, the special procedure, is not sup­ported by reason or authority". And lastly, it may be noted that in any event the provisions of the Army At, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 as applied to the members of GREF are protected by Article 33 against invalidation on the ground of violation of Article 14. The present contention urged on behalf of the petitioners must also therefore be rejected." 13. And lastly, it may be noted that in any event the provisions of the Army At, 1950 and the Army Rules, 1954 as applied to the members of GREF are protected by Article 33 against invalidation on the ground of violation of Article 14. The present contention urged on behalf of the petitioners must also therefore be rejected." 13. The Apex Court finally set at rest the question involved in the present Writ petition in Sunil Kumar Sarkar's case (supra) where the Apex Court, taking into consideration of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar Sarkar's case held that two proceed­ings, i.e. one under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the another under the Army Act and Rules operate in two different fields though the crime and misconduct might arise out of the same act; the Court martial pro­ceeding deals with the penal aspect of the misconduct while the proceedings under the Central Rule deals with the disciplinary as­pect of the misconduct. Two proceedings do not overlap. As a matter of fact, notification, i.e. S.R.O. 329 dated 23.9.1960 issued un­der the Central Rules and sub section (1) and (4) of the Section 4 of the Central Act makes the provisions clear and therefore there is no question of double jeopardy provided under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India in case of simultaneous proceedings under the said two prescribed procedures against the same employee for the same misconduct aris­ing out of the same act. Para 6 and 11 of the AIR in Sunil Kumar Sarkar read as follows: "6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records. As noticed above, one of the grounds relied upon by the Division Bench to pass the impugned order was that the respondent was kept under suspen­sion by the disciplinary authority after the GCM proceedings were over and while he was still in custody. According to the Division Bench, this was contrary to Rule 10 of the Central Rules inasmuch as certain condition precedent re­quired under the Rule was not existing when the order of suspension was made. It seems that the Division Bench was of the opinion that once a person is in custody the question of keeping him under suspension does not arise. It seems that the Division Bench was of the opinion that once a person is in custody the question of keeping him under suspension does not arise. We do riot agree with this opinion of the Divi­sion Bench because the Division Bench failed to notice that the respondent was due to be released on 27.1.1977 after serving the six months' R.I. imposed on him. After his release in the normal course, he was entitled to claim reinstatement in service unless departmental proceedings were initiated against him for the misconduct for which he was convicted. There­fore, the authority thought it necessary to keep the respondent under suspension, hence, the orders under Rule 10 of the Central Rules were issued keeping the respondent under suspen­sion. Rule 10 (1) (a) of the Central Rules em­powers the appointing authority to place a Gov­ernment servant under suspension if an inquiry is either being conducted against him or is con­templated against him. In the present case, a disciplinary authority had decided to initiate the disciplinary proceeding against the respondent and pursuant to the said decision and in exer­cise of the power vested in him by Rule 10(1)(a) of the Central Rules, the respondent was kept under suspension. Therefore, the concerned authority was well within its statutory power to keep the respondent under suspension and, in our opinion, the High Court fell in error in finding fault with the said decision on the ground that there was no need to keep the respondent under suspension when he is undergoing a sen­tence of imprisonment. 11. Before concluding we must point out that during the course of arguments, a doubt was raised as to the maintainability of the con­current proceedings initiated against the respondent by the authorities. The respondent in this case has been punished for the same misconduct both under the Army Act as also under the Central Rules. 1965. Hence, a ques­tion arises whether this would tantamount to 'double Jeopardy' and is in violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Having considered the arguments addressed in this behalf, we are of the opinion that so far as the concur­rent proceedings initiated by the Organisation against the respondent both under the Army Act and the Central Rules are concerned, they are unexceptionable. These two proceedings operate in two different fields though the crime or the misconduct might arise out of the same act. These two proceedings operate in two different fields though the crime or the misconduct might arise out of the same act. The Court-Martial proceedings deal with the penal aspect of the misconduct while the proceedings under the Central Rules deal with the disciplinary aspect of the misconduct. The two proceedings do not overlap. As a matter of fact, Notification No. SRO-329 dated 23.9.1960 issued under the Central Rules and under sub­sections (1) and (4) of Section 4 of the Army Act makes this position clear. By this notifica­tion, the punishments that could be meted out under the Central Rules have been taken out of the purview of the Court-Martial proceedings under the Army Act. We further find support for this view of ours in the judgment of this Court in R. Viswan Vs. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC658." 14. For the foregoing discussions and rea­sons, this Court answers the question posed in the present writ petition in favour of the respondents as a result there is no merit in the present writ petition and accordingly dis­missed. However, it is made clear that the peti­tioner will be at liberty to assail and/or to approach this Court by filing writ petition seek­ing appropriate remedy if he is aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary author­ity.