Withholding actual training marks despite successful reappearance violates Police Orders and constitutes impermissible double jeopardy.

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector appointed in 2018, appeared for the 2nd Semester Training Examination at the Police Training Academy, Hazaribagh

On December 8, 2021, he was caught cheating in the "Indian Constitution and Police Organization" paper, leading to his suspension and debarment from that session

A departmental proceeding followed, resulting in a punishment of forfeiture of increment for six months (one black mark)

In 2023, the petitioner reappeared for the 2nd Semester examinations and was declared "Passed," but the respondents refused to award specific marks or Director’s Assessment marks, instead listing him as "passed" without a score

This caused his seniority to be downgraded to the bottom of the 2018 batch

1. Whether after permitting the petitioner to reappear in the Semester-II Examination and declaring him successful, the respondents could have withheld the actual marks and Director/Principal assessment marks contrary to the governing Police Order

Police Order No. 238/93 (specifically Clause 7 and Clause 9(घ)), which stipulates that if a candidate is caught cheating in a PTC examination, they shall be awarded "zero" marks only in that specific paper, and separate departmental proceedings shall be initiated

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, ensuring equality and non-arbitrariness in administrative action

Legal doctrine against Double Jeopardy (Non bis in idem), which prevents an individual from being punished twice for the same offense

The court reasoned that under Clause 9(घ) of Police Order No. 238/93, the penalty for cheating is limited to receiving zero marks in that specific subject, not the permanent withholding of marks for the entire semester upon re-examination

By debarring the petitioner and subsequently refusing to grant him his earned marks (which RTI records showed to be 1011 marks), the respondents acted in "gross violation" of their own standing orders

Furthermore, the court found that similarly situated candidates in the 2018-19 session who were caught cheating had been allotted marks, making the denial in the petitioner’s case a violation of Article 14

The court concluded that since the petitioner had already undergone departmental punishment (forfeiture of increment), withholding his marks and consequently lowering his seniority constituted an impermissible second punishment for the same act of misconduct

The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed Respondents No. 2 (I.G. Training) and No. 4 (D.I.G. Personnel) to grant the petitioner his specific Second Semester marks and Director/Principal Assessment marks. It further ordered the respondents to re-prepare the seniority list for the 2018 Batch of Sub-Inspectors accordingly within four weeks