It is well settled that where the relevant Service Rules or the Rules governing the conditions of services provides for a particular thing, a simple Government Order is not sufficient to alter or modify the said thing or the Rules.
In Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., 2005 (2) AWC 1191 (FB), it was held in unequivocal terms that Statutory Rules cannot be set at naught by issuing executive instructions.
In Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society, (2013) 5 SCC 427, it has been held that executive instructions which have no statutory force cannot override the law and any notice, circular, guidelines etc. which run contrary to the statutory laws cannot be enforced. Dr. Chandra Mohan Verma v. State of U.P., 2018 (128) ALR 384.
The concept of double jeopardy, to some extent, is allergic to service law. The Supreme Court has made it clear in as many cases as one can think of (a) that imposition of a punishment and the denial of promotion did not amount to double jeopardy and (b) that the conviction by a criminal court and the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of conduct which led to the conviction or on pure questions of misconduct, did not amount to double jeopardy. Reference in this regard may be had to a Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court reported in the case of Manikandan and others v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services, Recruitment Board, Chennai and Others, (2008) 2 MLJ 1203.
In the case of R. Viswan v. Union of India, (1983) 3 SCC 401, the issue of double jeopardy was discussed and in that case Government servant was punished for the same misconduct both under the Army Act as well as under Central Government Rules, and it was held that, two proceedings under the army Act and the Central Government Rules operate in two different fields though the crime or the misconduct might arise out of one and the same Act. The Martial Court proceedings deals with the penal aspect of misconduct while proceedings under the Central Government Rules deals with disciplinary proceedings in respect of the misconduct. Therefore, it was held that it does not amount to double jeopardy. Dashrath Singh v. Andhra Bank, 2016 (150) FLR 540.