JUDGMENT PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. 1. In the instant Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants-corporation have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 26.11.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 3576 of 2009, by which the writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner was allowed quashing the order dated 13.07.2009 under Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 2. The factual matrix, in a nutshell, is that the respondent-writ petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Godown Manager in the year 1975 vide office order dated 03.06.1975 and was posted as Assistant Godown Manager at various places and was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager in the month of April, 1986. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the respondent-writ petitioner for defalcation and for shortage of food grains from time to time and pursuant to that departmental proceeding, he was put under suspension and amount of shortage was directed to be realized from the salary of the petitioner. Thereafter, the order of suspension was revoked. Vide order dated 22.05.1999, under Annexure 2 to the writ petition, the respondent-writ petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect with a further direction that except the subsistence allowance nothing would be paid for the suspension period and that the recovery of the damages suffered by the appellants-corporation shall be recovered from the salary of the respondent-writ petitioner. The said order of punishment was modified vide memo dated 22.11.2000. As it transpires from letter dated 24.04.2009, under Annexure 3 to the writ petition, a sum of Rs. 4,93,381.08/-was recovered from the salary of the respondent-writ petitioner. However, the respondent-writ petitioner was asked to submit show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 12,77,702.83/- towards interest of the damage/defalcation, be not recovered from the respondent-writ petitioner and lastly vide order dated 13.07.2009, under Annexure 7 to the writ petition, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent-writ petitioner for recovery of the said interest. 3. Being aggrieved of the departmental proceeding and the order of punishment, the respondent-writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition before this Court, bearing W.P. (S) No. 3576 of 2009, which was allowed quashing the impugned order dated 13.07.2009. The impugned order dated 26.11.2012 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3576 of 2014 is in challenge in this appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel for the appellants-corporation and Mr. The impugned order dated 26.11.2012 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3576 of 2014 is in challenge in this appeal. 4. Heard Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel for the appellants-corporation and Mr. A.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner. 5. On perusal of the entire records, it transpires that in pursuance of the decision of the proceedings, the respondent-writ petitioner has already been inflicted with order of stoppage of increment and further an amount of Rs. 4,93,381/- has already been recovered towards damage from the salary of the respondent-writ petitioner, as mentioned in Annexure 3 to the writ petition. But so far as payment of Rs. 12,77,702.83/-towards interest of the said amount is concerned, it is not legally permissible since the respondent-writ petitioner cannot be punished again for the same cause of action as the recovery of the additional recovery (interest part) of the aforesaid amount would amount to double jeopardy. Moreover, the appellants-corporation have risen from deep slumber after a lapse of a decade from culmination of the departmental proceedings to fasten liability on the respondent-writ petitioner for payment of aforesaid amount towards interest component. 6. Viewed thus, we are of the considered view that there appears to be no infirmity, perversity or illegality in the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. No order as to cost.