1. ORDER Saad Saood Jan (Chairman).--The appellant in this appeal is an officiating Sub-Inspector of Police. In 1972 he was posted at Multan. By an order communicated to him on 8-7-1972 he was transferred to Police Training College at Sihala. He did not comply with this border. His excuse was that he had fallen ill. Apparently, this excuse was not accepted and a departmental inquiry was held against him. As a result of this inquiry he was dismissed from service on 19-12-1972 by the Superintendent of Police, Multan. He preferred an appeal against his dismissal which was partly accepted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Multan Range and the order of dismissal was substituted with one of reduction in pay. He then preferred a revision before the Inspector General of Police against the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The Inspector General of Police accepted the revision on the technical ground that the charge-sheet served upon him was defective. Accordingly, he ordered; "In view of the defective charge-sheet served upon the petitioner I hold the entire departmental proceedings against him nul and void and quash the order of the Superintendent of Police, Multan by which the petitioner was dismissed from service, and the order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Multan Range by which his pay was reduced from Rs. 280 to 270 per month. The Superintendent of Police, D. G. Khan under whom the petitioner is presently serving, shall restart the departmental enquiry against the petitioner on charges of having failed to carry out the order of his transfer to P T C Sihala from the stage at which the irregularity was committed." The appellant was alleged to have used some intemperate language against the Superintendent of Police in the grounds of revision which he had filed before the Inspector General of Police. For this he was separately charge-sheeted and a penalty of censure was imposed upon him. In this appeal the appellant 'has challenged the order of Inspector General of Police by which he directed the institution of fresh inquiry as well as the order of censure imposed upon him. y Sp far as the order of censure is concerned this appeal is incompetent. Sub- clause (ii) of paragraph (b) of the proviso to section 4, Punjab Administrative Tribunals Act, 1974 clearly states that no appeal shall lie to the Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority in cases where the penalty imposed is other than dismissal, removal, reduction in rankly or a compulsory retirement from service. A censure does not amount to anyl of these penalties. As regards the order of the Inspector General of Police directing a fresh inquiry it is to be observed that one of the grounds taken by the appellant before the Inspector General of Police was that the charge-sheet served upon him was defective. This ground found favour with the Inspector General of Police and he set aside the entire proceedings on this technical ground. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the holding of a second inquiry would violate the principle of autre fois acquit is clearly untenable, as the order of the Inspector General of Police was not based on the merit of the case but only on a technical ground which was advanced by the appellant himself. We, therefore, do not find any fault with the said order of the Inspector General of Police. For the reasons stated this appeal is without any force and is hereby dismissed in limine.