Double jeopardy under Article 20(2) did not bar termination based on criminal conviction after prior departmental punishment.

Article 20(2) protection against double jeopardy did not apply where a departmental penalty for negligent conduct causing departmental loss was followed by termination based on conviction in a criminal case. The two actions rested on different grounds, arose from separate causes of action, and operated under different parts of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. Rule 7(2)(b) excluded the ordinary procedure for a major penalty imposed on the ground of conduct leading to criminal conviction, so the termination order based on conviction was valid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was subjected to double jeopardy so as to attract Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India when one departmental penalty was imposed for negligent conduct causing loss to the department and a later penalty of termination was imposed on the basis of conviction in a criminal case.

Analysis: The earlier departmental punishment was imposed after enquiry under the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 for conduct resulting in departmental loss and disrepute, whereas the later termination was founded on conviction and sentence in the criminal case. The two actions rested on different grounds, arose from different cause of actions, and operated under different parts of Rule 7. Rule 7(2)(b) specifically excludes the requirement of the ordinary procedure where a major penalty is proposed on the ground of conduct leading to conviction in a criminal case. The protection against double jeopardy therefore did not apply.

Conclusion: Article 20(2) was not attracted, and the termination order based on conviction was valid.

---