Judgment 1. The order which was passed by the High Court on the earlier petition, in a matter which was directly in context, being CWJC No. 8397 of 2000 : The Superintendent of Post Offices, Darbhanga V/s. Kameshwar Jha, should have been an enough indication to the petitioner to let the record rests as it is. The respondent in the other petition filed by the Superintendent of Post Offices is no other person than the petitioner in the present one, Kameshwar Jha. 2. Normally, there is no occasion for the court to reflect upon its earlier order unless an opportunity is provided by any of the parties to the lis. Unfortunately, the petitioner has brought this petition and given an occasion to the court to recollect the earlier order also. In the earlier order the, court nad not interfered on the petition of the Union of India, because it permitted the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal to rest without substituting its second opinion. The Central Administrative Tribunal had not passed an order for re-instatement. As sufficient period had elapsed and the incumbent, the petitioner here, had retired, the question of re-instatement in any case does not arise and, thus, the matter of reinstatement became academic. In so far as the back wages are concerned it has been denied on the ground that he had not worked in any case but pensionary benefits had been permitted as from the date of his retirement or superannuation. 3. That the High Court did not interfere on the earlier petition the petitioner thought he will take his chance in the present one and make a claim for back wages also. Now is the time for the court to place on record that the entire episode on which the enquiry took place against the petitioner does not inspire confidence in an employer that he should be kept in employment. 4. Firstly, the. issue against the petitioner was that he had obtained employment on the basis of a forged marks-sheet. The petitioner sought a declaration in a suit proceeding claiming that he had not received adequate opportunity in a departmental proceedings. If the departmental proceedings record is to be examined, clearly the record bears out that when the department offered him an opportunity to take his defence he conveniently indicated to the department that he is under some mental tension. The petitioner sought a declaration in a suit proceeding claiming that he had not received adequate opportunity in a departmental proceedings. If the departmental proceedings record is to be examined, clearly the record bears out that when the department offered him an opportunity to take his defence he conveniently indicated to the department that he is under some mental tension. In the circumstances, any finding of the court below that the petitioner was without an opportunity is a finding in error. The doubt on the mark-sheet still lingers. The petitioner avoided the inquiry on technicalities. 5. The balance which remains is perhaps an allegation that the petitioner obtained his empioyment on a forged mark-sheet and during the course of his employment he was committing irregularities by misappropriating goods booked with the railways. The allegation remaind that the petitioner denied himself the opportunity of taking his defence. The petitioner cannot chase his claim for back wages. 6. Fortunately, notice has not been issued on this petition otherwise the court would have awarded costs against the petitioner. 7. Dismissed.