1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.627/01 Man Singh vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 21/5/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ None present for the petitioner. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. Government Counsel for the respondents. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.6.90, 30.3.96 and 30.10.2000 by which recovery of a sum of Rs.4116.70 was ordered against him under Section 74 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and his appeal and revision petitions thereagainst were respectively rejected by the Additional Registrar Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur and the Cooperative Minister of the State. Although, no one is present on behalf of the petitioner, but the sole basis on which the writ petition has been filed is that enquiry against petitioner was held ex-parte and that this happened because the petitioner was in judicial confinement for sometime in between and could not arrange 2 for his defence. The petitioner has contended in the writ petition that this enquiry which was held in the year 1990 could not have been again held because the same would be hit by the principles of double jeopardy. On the same charges enquiry was earlier held in the year 1986 wherein all the charges were dropped except the one that the petitioner utilised the amount of Rs.4733.50 paise of the respondent-society for his personal use between 1.4.1986 and 30.6.1986. It was directed that a sum of Rs.213 be recovered from the petitioner as interest for temporary use by the aforesaid funds of the society. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was in judicial confinement from July, 1993 to 26.5.1997 whereas enquiry was held in the year 1990. Despite notice, the petitioner did not appear in the enquiry proceedings and therefore he has to blame himself. Even after enquiry is complete, the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner but he did not respond. In the enquiry 3 report, six allegations against the petitioner levelled on the objections of audit para 17 and 51 were found proved showing embezzlement of sum of Rs.4,116.70. Learned counsel submitted that the enquriy order has been upheld by the appellate authority and the revisional authority and there are thus concurrent findings of fact on all the charges. No interference by this Court is therefore called for. Having heard the learned Additional Government Counsel and considered the arguments raised in the memorandum of writ petition, I find that an enquiry was indeed held against the petitioner on four charges in 1986. This is evident from the enquiry report dated Annexure-5. A perusal of that enquiry report reveals that the four charges therein when compared with the charges in the fresh enquiry that was held in the year 1990, it becomes evident that they are the same charges which are charges nos.2, 3 and 4 in the enquiry subsequently held in the year 1990. Even if the inquiry was proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner, it was duty of the respondents to have verified their 4 own record. When in earlier inquiry, as contended by the petitioner, he was exonerated of these charges, he could not be again held guilty of these charges. Doing so, would be hit by the principles of double jeopardy. This aspect of the matter has completely been lost sight of by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority. In the face of this, the recovery order against the petitioner cannot be sustained and also the appellate authority and the revisional authority are liable to be set aside. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.6.90, 30.3.96 and 30.10.2000 are quashed and set aside. A copy of this judgement be endorsed to the petitioner for information. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/