AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Pramod Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) HE contends that the amount of price of the Rifle which now has to be recovered from the petitioner after 14 years is in the nature of a second punishment for the same mistake for which the punishment had already been awarded to the petitioner. He submits that this recovery is unjustified and, therefore, the recovery proceeding should be quashed. In essence the submission of Sri Pathak is that the proceeding adopted by the respondents for recovering the price of the Rifle from the petitioner is hit by the principles of double jeopardy.
(3.) THE aforesaid argument is not applicable in the present set of facts inasmuch as the petitioner has been punished for dereliction of duty whereas the action of recovery is of price of the article which was lost by the petitioner. The petitioner is liable reimburse the Police Force with the price of the Rifle which has been lost on account of his mistake.;