JUDGMENT 1. Writ petitioner is in the services of the State Government and working as an Inspector of Police in the Lottery and Excise Wing at Chikballapur. 2. Writ petitioner basically claims to be aggrieved by an order passed by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission on an application in HRC No.115/2007 on the complaint of one R. Keshava Rao alleging that he had been subjected to insult and harassment by the writ petitioner. 3. The Commission took note of the complaint, held an inquiry and that resulted in an order dated 29.04.2009 in the first round relying on the order dated 12.1.2009 being passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kolar pursuant to the recommendations that had been made by the Commission and consequential directions issued by the Director General of Police. 4. This order was subject matter of writ petition No.19908/2009 before this court and this court as per order dated 31.10.2011 while quashed this order, directed the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission to reconsider the matter keeping in view the explanation of the petitioner and also certain order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.729/2009 passed by the Tribunal on 9.7.2009 etc. 5. It is thereafter the Commission has re-heard the matter and has passed the order dated 20.2.2013, directing the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Karnataka to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and recover the said amount from the respondent in addition to the Departmental Inquiry which the petitioner already faced which had resulted in postponement of three increments without cumulative effect. 6. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submission for Sri. H N M Prasad, learned counsel is that the Commission is only authorized to make recommendation to the Government and not to issue positive direction, particularly, quantifying the amount and directing the Government to recover the amount from the petitioner after paying the same from the Department etc; that this amounts to double jeopardy; that the petitioner had already been punished in the departmental inquiry and he cannot also be inflicted with punishment of recovery of damages of Rs.20,000/-; that the petitioner did not have sufficient opportunity to cross examine the complainant and therefore the direction is also bad in law etc. 7. The matter had been directed to be looked into by this court in the writ petition by the petitioner as per order dated 31.10.2011. 7. The matter had been directed to be looked into by this court in the writ petition by the petitioner as per order dated 31.10.2011. It is in this background, the matter had been remanded and the Commission has looked into the matter again. 8. The Commission also was aware about the departmental inquiry and punishment inflicted on the petitioner. I am of the view that this is not a case attracting the provisions of double jeopardy as two issues were different and if the petitioner has in his personal capacity committed acts beyond the limits of his office either causes some damage or insults resulting in harassment to an individual, this is an aspect which definitely comes within the domain of Human Rights Commission as it is a case of violation of human rights. Insofar as procedural aspect is concerned, petitioner had full opportunity before the Commission and in fact the matter had gone back to the Commission in the second round at the instance of the petitioner alone. 9. The direction now issued is to the State Government to pay compensation to the complainant before the Commission and it is open to the Government to recover the amount or not which is not compulsion on the part of the Government. The direction is definitely in the nature of recommendation. It is for the State Government to accept or implement it in whatever manner it deems fit. I do not find any need for interference where the Commission has looked into the matter in the second round and had passed orders. 10. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.