Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. In this writ application, the petitioner has claimed for quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings including the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 12.9.1995 and thereafter and also for a direction not to proceed against the petitioner in the same matter any further. 2. The facts are almost admitted in this case. In the month of April, 1989, the petitioner was appointed on a causal basis in the post of Khalasi under the respondent No. 2. In the month of July, 1989, the petitioner was appointed in the post of Junior Chemical Assistant but on 3.1.1990, the service of the petitioner was discontinued with immediate effect. The petitioner raised industrial dispute before the appropriate Government through Labour Department by notification dated 10.1.1991. The matter was referred to the Labor Court, Bokaro Steel City. After hearing both the parties and after the evidence was adduced by both the parties, the Labour Court vide order dated 21.7.1992 in terms of reference decided the matter in favour of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner for which the Management discontinued his employment was that he had taken the service on compassionate ground although his elder brother was already in the appointment under the Steel Authority of India Limited (for short SAIL), the retrenchment order was found to be illegal and the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner within three months. Accordingly by office order dated 29.10.1992, the petitioner was reinstated to the post of Junior Chemical Assistant (L-3) grade on causal basis with effect from 3.1.1990. Then again the petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 26.4.1993 on the same ground that the had procured service on concealment of fact that his elder brother is being in service in the same Management. The petitioner submitted his representation praying for dropping the matter. After due enquiry, by office order dated 6.10.1993, the matter was dropped by imposing warning against the petitioner. After that by office order dated 26.10.1993, the petitioner was, permanently absorbed in the post of Junior Chemical Assistant. The petitioner submitted his representation praying for dropping the matter. After due enquiry, by office order dated 6.10.1993, the matter was dropped by imposing warning against the petitioner. After that by office order dated 26.10.1993, the petitioner was, permanently absorbed in the post of Junior Chemical Assistant. Again on 12.9.1995, the petitioner has been served with a show cause notice purportedly on the basis of the order dated 7.2.1995 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2615 of 1993 (R) on the ground of his illegal appointment vis-a-vis that he has procured the appointment on suppression of material fact of his elder brother being in service of the same Management. The petitioner was not a party in the aforesaid writ petition nor his case was within the category which was the matter in issue in the said writ petition. However, on fear of general directions being issued/given in that writ petition, one Shri Shailendra Kumar and Ors. including the petitioner challenged the order of CW.J.C. No. 2615 of 1993 (R) dated 7.2.1995 in L.P.A. No. 306 of 1995 (R). The petitioner also submitted his representation in connection with the show cause notice. Even after that, again on 6.2.1996, the petitioner was served with a further show cause notice on the same set of allegation. Although during the pendency of that show cause notice, the service of the petitioner has been confirmed upon the completion of probation period and he was granted the benefits of increments too. It is the case of the petitioner that he was also directed by the authorities to appear in interview for further promotion in the line of his grade. 3. The petitioners contention is that on the same matter of allegation the petitioner was once retrenched from service and then again on the decision of Labour Court, the allegation could not be substantiated and the petitioner was reinstated and while he was the causal employees, he was absorbed in the service on regular basis and he was proceeded with on the same allegation departmentally again and the same was concluded by imposing warning on the petitioner. Then the petitioner was permanently absorbed as was allowed by the authorities, he cannot be proceeded with on the same set of allegation again and again. 4. Then the petitioner was permanently absorbed as was allowed by the authorities, he cannot be proceeded with on the same set of allegation again and again. 4. In the counter-affidavit being filed, it has been stated specifically that as the petitioner had already entered into the service on suppression of material facts for securing the job, the respondent-Company is bound to proceed against the petitioner as per the direction given by this Court in the writ petition, as mentioned above. The Company has got no other alternative but to abide by the directions of this Court and when already contempt proceedings are being drawn against the Company for non-compliance of the order of this Court. Charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner in compliance of the Courts order and several other persons have also been either retrenched or being proceeded with as per the directions of this Court. 5. From the above facts, it is very clear that the petitioner was never a party in C.W.J.C. No. 2615 of 1993 (R) wherein a general direction has been given by this Court vide order dated 7.2.1995. The allegation on which it is said that the petitioner has procured the job by suppression of fact and such appointment was illegal was the subject matter both before the Labour Court and on a subsequent disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and the petitioner could over-come in both those proceedings and then the petitioner has been regularised in the service and has also been permanently absorbed and is allowed to continue in service with all promotional avenues in future. In that case, according to the petitioner, he cannot be proceeded further on the same allegation. 6. The fundamental principal remains that a person cannot be vexed twice for the same set of allegation. In the present case, the petitioner was once retrenched on the same allegation but the Labour Court had quashed the retrenchment order. Then again a regular proceeding was drawn against the petitioner and the authorities had allowed the petitioner to remain in service by giving warning. Although that might be a minor punishment but the processing was there on the same allegations and the same has been ended by imposing warning on the petitioner. Thus there remains no scope for proceeding on the same set of allegation against the petitioner again and again. 7. Mr. MM. Although that might be a minor punishment but the processing was there on the same allegations and the same has been ended by imposing warning on the petitioner. Thus there remains no scope for proceeding on the same set of allegation against the petitioner again and again. 7. Mr. MM. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the SAIL has fairly submitted that all facts might be true the respondent have no scope to let the petitioner go un-punished or his appointment be cancelled as there is specific direction against the SAIL authorities by this Court and when the direction of the Single Judge has been confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal, there remains no scope of raising any voice from the side of the petitioner when he was also one of the parties in the Letters Patent Appeal only. 8. Before the Hon ble Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2615 of 1993 (R), one Awadhesh Singh came up against the denial of the SAIL authorities in giving him appointment on compassionate ground on the death of the petitioners father in harness. His appointment was denied on compassionate ground as one of the family members was already in service under the SAIL. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed but during the course of disposing of that writ petition, a general observation direction was made in the following manner:- Learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument submits that inspite of the aforesaid policy some appointments have been made by the respondents authority against the aforesaid policy decision. If the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is correct then the persons who have made such appointments will be hold liable for making illegal appointment and the salary withdrawn by such illegal appointed employees has to be realised from the persons making illegal appointment. The Chairman of the Steel Authority of India Limited will look into the matter and if he finds that its own policy is being violated by its own officers then he should take steps against those officers in accordance with law and will see that the illegal appointments which have been made, should be concelled. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of. 9. From the observation made by the Hon ble Single Judge, it transpires that it is nothing but an observation obiter dicta and the same observations is also full of its and buts. During the course of argument, no clear cut policy decision could be shown by Mr. Banerjee that only a family member being appointed on his own caliber appointment on compassionate ground to another family member cannot be given. It is true that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be vested right of the persons seeking so and the same is dependent on the fate of the family not being Swayed away when the employee died in harness. But it has been stated that while filling up the application form for appointment on compassionate ground, the column wherein the appointment engagement of any other family members was kept vacant by the petitioner and as such it is stated that there was suppression of fact and the appointment was procured illegally. As I have stated earlier, no clear cut policy decision is there to that effect and as such only a column not being filled up cannot be said to be a suppression of fact and that too when the same has been done long back, the petitioner cannot be proceeded with for the same set of allegation again and again. 10. It has been submitted by Mr. Banerjee that the observation is. in the form of a direction by the Hon ble Single Judge but that cannot be said to be a direction when the parties against whom the actions are to be taken were definitely not made parties to the proceedings and any observation even if in the form of direction remains only an observation and the same is diluted when the parties against whom such directions are made were not parties to the proceedings. 11. Another wing of argument of Mr. Banerjee is that the order of the Hon ble Single Judge was confirmed by a Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 306 of 1995 (R) vide order dated 18.7.1996 which is contained in Annexure 13 to the writ petition. That Letters Patent Appeal was held to be not maintainable as the person who had filed Letters Patent Appeal including the petitioner were not parties to C.W.J.C. No. 2615 of 1993 (R). That Letters Patent Appeal was held to be not maintainable as the person who had filed Letters Patent Appeal including the petitioner were not parties to C.W.J.C. No. 2615 of 1993 (R). The observation of L.P.A. No. 306 of 1995 (R) may be quoted below for clarification:- The appellants apprehend that in the garb of the said direction, steps may be taken against the appellants and they may be removed from their services. Admittedly the appellants were not party in the said writ application which is going to affect them. The policy decision of the SAIL is there which is accepted. The appellants cannot deny that the Chairman should see that the policy decision is implemented. A letters patent appeal can only be filed by a reason who is either a petitioner or a respondent in the said writ application. 12. Policy decision was mentioned both in the writ petition and the Letters Patent Appeal but those have never been clarified as to what was the actual policy decision of the SAIL. In that observation of the Hon ble Single Judge whether legal or not cannot be taken into consideration at this stage when Letters Patent Appeal was there against it but such observations cannot be in the form of a direction as already mentioned abode and it was also mentioned by the Hon ble Single Judge that such form of direction was only an observation in the last line of-the order itself. Thus I am not in a position to accept the submission of Mr. Banerjee that SAIL authorities have got no other alternative but to comply with the direction of this Court for proceeding against the illegal appointees but such alleged illegality in the appointment of the petitioner was already set at least by the authorities and the same cannot be re-opened on the basis of an observation which is nothing but an obiter dicta and the matter of illegal appointment of this petitioner cannot be re-opened. Moreover in the observation I find that much stress was on the taking of action by the Chairman on the appointing authorities who had made such illegal appointments and even if such observation is taken to be a direction then also action may be taken against the illegal appointment according to law and on the fundamental principle of law when the petitioner was already proceeded with on the same allegation, he cannot be further proceeded so. 13. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned show cause notice dated 12.9.1995 (Annexure-7) and 30.1.1996/6.2.1996 (Annexure-9) issued against the petitioner are hereby quashed but without costs.