Civil Appeal No 899 of 1968
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 15th February 1967 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in C Rule No 231 of 1965
Naunit Lal for the appellants
Sukumar Ghose for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER J
Was this virtually valstudinarian appeal by the Sate against an old and perhaps by now superannuated emyloyee necessary Litigation by the State means laying out public resources in a country of much poverty and scarce resources and only if the demanding justice of a case calls for it should an appeal otherwise of inconsequence be carried to the highest Court
In the present instance a veterinary assistant the respondent herein was suspended in 1960 followed by disciplinary proceedings
An enquiry officer appointed by the Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department conducted the proceedings submitted his report of findings adverse to the respondent whereupon a show cause notice indicating the penalty of dismissal was issued
The delinquent  pleaded innocence by his explanatory statement and the Director on a study of the case in the light of the explanation offered directed reinstatement in a cryptic order which runs thus 129 ORDER No 81 DATED 11 12 62 Shri J N Roy Biswas Manager East Harinagar Live stock Farm Cachar who was placed under suspension vide this office order No 42 dated 23 12 60 is re instated in the same post of Manager at East Harinagar Livestock Farm with effect from the date the reports for duty
Sd G K Mehra Director of Animal Husbandry  Vety
Department Assam Gauhati Memo No PI 91826822 Dated Gauhati the 13th Dec 62
Copy forwarded to 1
Shri J N Roy Biswas Manager East Harinagar Livestock Farm under suspension Co Brahmachari Maharaj Shri Dawarikanath Ramkrishna Seva Samity Chatribari Gauhati for information and necessary action
The findings and orders of the proceeding will follow
2   
3 The findings and orders together with the regularisation of the period of suspension of Shri J N Roy Biswas with effect from 5 1 61 to the date of his reporting for duty at East Harinagar Livestock Farm will be communicated separately
The date of joining of Shri Biswas may be in formed to this office separately
Sd B K Das for Director of Animal Hy  Vety
lt is noteworthy that no reasoned findings were recorded
That particular officer retired and his successor wrote to the Joint Secretary to Government that from the materials of the case the delinquent  r merited punishment and the proceedings be re opened
This was done and as the de novo recording of evidence progressed the respondent moved the High Court under article 226 for a writ of prohibition as in his submission there was no power to re open a case concluded by exoneration and reinstatement and the illegal vexation of a second enquiry should be arrested
This grievance was held good by the High Court which granted the relief sought
What is the conspectus of circumstances  A small veterinary official a long enquiry for mis conduct a final direction cancelling suspension and reinstating him the likelihood of the man having retired 15 years have gone by and nothing on record to substantiate any fatal infirmity in the earlier enquiry or dereliction of duty by the disciplinary authority except that a reasoned record of findings was to be forthcoming but did not because he had retired in the mean while
No action against the retired Director for this alleged omission was felt justified and perhaps was not warranted but with persistent 130 litigative zeal Government has come in appeal to this Court against the petty official
Had he misappropriated Government money he should have been punished expeditiously
But having been exculpated after enquiry the State could go at him by re opening the proceedings only if the rules vested some such revisory power
None such has been shown to exist although one wonders why a rule vesting such a residuary power of a supervisory nature to be exercised in the event 
of a subordinate disciplinary authority not having handled a delinquent adequately or rightly is brought to the attention of Government has not been made
No rule of double jeopardy bars but absence of power under a rule inhibits a second inquiry by the Disciplinary authority after the delinquent had once been absolved
The appeal must fail and is dismissed with costs
We may however make it clear that no government servant can urge that if for some technical or other good ground procedural or other the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law that a second enquiry cannot be launched
It can be but once a disciplinary case has closed and the official re instated presumably on full exoneration
a chagrined Government cannot re start the exercise in the absence of specific power to review or revise vested by rules ill some authority
The basics of the rule of law cannot be breached without legal provision or other vitiating factor invalidating the earlier enquiry
For the present this is theoretical because no such deadly defect is apparent on the record
PBR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The respondent a Government servant was suspended from service in 1960
on receipt of the findings of the Inquiry officer a show cause notice was issued
The appointing authority exonerated the respondent but did not make a reasoned order
Later however the case WAS reopened
As the de novo recording of evidence progressed the respondent moved the High Court contending that there was no power in the Government to re open a case which had already been concluded by exoneration and re instatement
The High Court granted the relief 
Dismissing the appeal of the sate  HELD
Had the Government servant misappropriated government money he should have been punished expeditiously
But having been exculpated after enquiry the State could go at him by re opening the proceedings only if the rules vested some such revisory power No rule of double jeopardy bars the reopening of the case
But once a disciplinary case has closed and the official re instated the government cannot restart the exercise in the absence of specific power to review or revise vested by rules in some authority
The basics of the rule of law cannot be breached without a legal provision or other vitiating factor invalidating earlier enquiry