Summarize the following court judgment. 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 918/26822 Dated Gauhati	 the 13th Dec. '62. Copy forwarded to: 1. Shri J. N. Roy Biswas	 Manager	 East Harinagar Livestock Farm (under suspension) C/o 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. P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.

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.