Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the show-cause notice dated 26.06.2014 issued by the second respondent. Consequently, he is also seeking for a direction to include his name in the appropriate place in the panel of Inspector of Police fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year 2011-2012 and promote him as Deputy Superintendent of Police with continuity of service and all monetary benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- He was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police and thereafter, promoted as Inspector of Police in the year 1999. While he was working as Inspector of Police at Central Crime Branch, Salem, he was issued with a charge memo, dated 05.09.2007. He has submitted his explanation refuting the charges. An enquiry was conducted, wherein the charges levelled against the petitioner was found proved. The Disciplinary Authority, namely, Deputy Inspector General of Police, disagreed with the finding of the enquiry officer and draped the charges levelled against him. However, the second respondent through proceedings, dated 14.06.2012, held the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved and awarded punishment of withholding of increment for two years. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent on 09.07.2012 and the same came to be rejected on 25.06.2013. No opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of punishment as well as by the appellate authority. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court in W.P(MD)No.13822 of 2013. By an order dated 05.12.2013, the order of punishment confirmed by the appellate authority were set aside on the reason that they were passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the present impugned show-cause notice was issued by the second respondent in respect of the very same charge by pointing out that this Court has set aside the earlier punishment only on the reason that no opportunity was given to the petitioner. Challenging the said show-cause notice, the present writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned show-cause notice, once this Court has already set aside the order of punishment in respect of the very same charge. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit and reiterated the contentions raised in the show-cause notice. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit and reiterated the contentions raised in the show-cause notice. It is their case that this Court has set aside the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner earlier only on the reason that no opportunity was given to the petitioner and therefore, a fresh show-cause notice is issued giving opportunity to the petitioner. 4. Mr.M.Ajmalkhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice in view of the fact that this Court has already set aside the order of punishment without giving any liberty to the second respondent to proceed afresh. Thus, he contended that in the absence of any such specific liberty, the second respondent is not entitled to issue the present show-cause notice. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied on unreported decisions in W.P(MD)No.36490 of 2015 dated 28.03.2006 and W.P(MD)No.9963 of 2012 dated 11.10.2013. 5. Mr.S.Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents reiterated the contentions raised in the counter affidavit and submitted that the show-cause notice need not be interfered with. 6. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the material placed before this Court. 7. It is not in dispute that the present show-cause notice as well as the earlier order of punishment imposed on the petitioner is in respect of the one and the same charge arising out of same cause of action. It is also not in dispute that the earlier punishment confirmed by the appellate authority was challenged before this Court in W.P(MD)No.13822 of 2013, wherein an order came to be passed on 05.12.2013, which reads as follows:- “7. The power under Rule 15(A) of the Rules cannot be exercised for a mere asking. It is a power of review. It is not a substitute to an appellate power. Therefore, while exercising the said power, the procedure contemplated therein will have to be complied with. A perusal of the order impugned, dated 14.06.2012, passed by the second respondent would show that it has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The second respondent has not even indicated, in his order, as to how the third respondent was wrong in coming to his conclusion. There has to be some prima facie materials, which should be available to the second respondent while exercising the power of review. The second respondent has not even indicated, in his order, as to how the third respondent was wrong in coming to his conclusion. There has to be some prima facie materials, which should be available to the second respondent while exercising the power of review. A perusal of the order impugned would further show that none of the ingredients are available. Further, the order, dated 25.06.2013, passed by the first respondent is a non-speaking order, as in the grounds of appeal, the petitioner has raised very many grounds. However, without considering the above said grounds, the first respondent has merely confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. 8. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the orders impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 14.06.2012, passed by the second respondent, which was confirmed by the first respondent, dated 25.06.2013, are set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.” 8. Perusal of the above order would show that the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner in respect of the same charge, for which, the present show-cause notice is issued, was set aside without giving any liberty to the petitioner to proceed afresh even though the natural justice violation was the reason for setting aside the punishment. It is also not in dispute that the said order attained finality as no appeal was filed challenging the same. Needless to say that there may be several reasons for setting aside an order of punishment. One of the reasons or only reason may be the violation of principles of natural justice. But the net result is that the order of punishment is set aside. Once the order of punishment is set aside, what would be the consequences is that the authority, who passed the order of punishment, cannot proceed on the delinquent either in respect of the very same charge or in pursuant to the order of punishment. In this case, if the intention of the respondents is to proceed afresh against the petitioner, they should have sought for and obtained specific liberty from this Court earlier, especially when the said order has been passed after hearing both sides. In this case, if the intention of the respondents is to proceed afresh against the petitioner, they should have sought for and obtained specific liberty from this Court earlier, especially when the said order has been passed after hearing both sides. Therefore, the respondents being parties to the said proceedings and having suffered an order and allowed the same to become final, conclusive and binding, cannot now turnaround and say that the said order was passed only on the reason of violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, they are entitled to proceed afresh by way of issuing the impugned show-cause notice. In my considered view, the action of the second respondent herein is nothing but a overreaching act, which is impermissible. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned show-cause notice is erroneous, bad and illegal on the face of it and consequently without jurisdiction. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the decisions made in W.P(MD)No.36490 of 2005 dated 28.03.2006, wherein at paragraph Nos. 4 and 5, which reads as follows:- “4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have no jurisdiction to re-open or re-issue the charge memo, after order was passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.950 of 1989 on 11.12.1986, as no liberty was given to the respondents. 5. I have perused the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal as referred above, wherein, the Tribunal quashed the order without giving any liberty. Therefore, the action of the second respondent in ordering restart of the disciplinary proceeding afresh as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.1497 dated 21.08.1990, while reinstating the petitioner, is unauthorised and without jurisdiction.” 9. Likewise in another decision made in W.P(MD)No.9963 of 2012 dated 11.10.2013, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held at paragraph 7 as follows:- “7. Admittedly, the enquiry officer held that the charges were not proved. While deviating from the part of the enquiry officer, reasons should have been recorded and supplied to the delinquent. This was not done. It is because of this reason, the punishment was quashed. Had it been the intention of this Court to grant liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order, after giving reasons for the deviation, this Court would have certainly told so in so many words. This was not done. It is because of this reason, the punishment was quashed. Had it been the intention of this Court to grant liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order, after giving reasons for the deviation, this Court would have certainly told so in so many words. Going by the nature of the allegations, going by the findings of the enquiry officer and all the other relevant factors, this Court did not think it necessary to grant liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders. That is the reason why this Court did not grant such liberty. When that be so, the respondents cannot assume that they have been given liberty by implication by this Court. In such view of the matter, I hold that the impugned show cause notice is wholly without jurisdiction.” 10. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances and the above orders passed by this Court, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned show-cause notice is set aside. Insofar as the other relief sought for in this writ petition, it is for the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.