JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner, who was an Assistant Engineer (Civil) under the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, seeks to assail the validity of office order No. 94/117 dated 4.5.1994 (Annexure-14) transferring him from Lucknow Division to Koraput Division in the State of Orissa. He also questions the propriety of the office order No. 44/292 dated 22.3.1995 (Annexure-24) declaring his appointment as assistant Engineer (Civil) to have stood automatically lost as per Rule 10 of H.A.L., Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. Besides the aforesaid principal reliefs, he has also prayed for consequential service benefits. 2. In order to decide the dispute, it is necessary to discriminate certain relevant facts which are as follows: The Petitioner while serving as Assistant Engineer (Civil) under Lucknow Division of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, came to be transferred to Koraput Division by office order No. 94/117 dated 4.5.1994 (Annexure-14). Consequently, he was relieved from Lucknow Division on 11.4.1994 which is evident from the letter No. 95/66 dated 10.1.1995 (Annexure-A/1). Being fell aggrieved by the transfer order, he moved Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court by filing writ petition No. 602 (S/B) of 1994. The Division Bench of that High Court by order dated 20.1.1995 dismissed the writ petition by passing a speaking order (Annexure-22/4). Against the aforesaid dismissal order, the Petitioner filed SLP (Civil) No. 11131 of 1995 before the Supreme Court which was dismissed by order dated 11.7.1995 (Annexure-25) as withdrawn with leave to question "subsequent orders through proper proceedings in appropriate forum." In the meantime, by office order No. 44/292 dated 22.3.1995 (Annexure-24) his services were terminated by declaring that his lien on his appointment as Assistant Engineer (Civil) stood automatically lost as provided under Rule 10 of H.A.L. Conduct. Discipline and Appeal Rules. He challenged the aforesaid order terminating his services before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court by means of a writ petition on 5.12.1995 (Writ petition No. 1065 (SB) of 1995). By order dated 21.3.1996 (Annexure-47) the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court and cause of action, if any. By order dated 21.3.1996 (Annexure-47) the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court and cause of action, if any. arose within the jurisdiction of the Orissa High Court, as the order of termination was passed in the State of Orissa, Against the said order dismissing the writ petition, he filed review petition No. 71 (S/B) of 1996 before the Lucknow Bench which was dismissed by order dated 26.9.1997 (Annexure-48). Undaunted by the dismissal orders, he filed SLP (Civil) No. CC 3777 of 1988 before the Supreme Court which came to be dismissed by order dated 4.5.1998 (Annexure-49). The order reads as follows: On the principal order the SLP is delayed by 621 days. The explanation in that behalf is not satisfactory. The SLP is dismissed, in so far as the SLP against the review order is concerned, we are satisfied that the interests of justice will not be served by any interference in this matter. The SLP is dismissed. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this Court on 17.8.1998 challenging his transfer order as well as the order terminating his services. 3. The questions arise for consideration in this writ petition. (i) Validity of the transfer of the Petitioner from Lucknow Division to Koraput Division; and (ii) Validity of termination of his services as the Assistant Engineer (Civil). 4. Let us now proceed to discuss the question in seriatim: (i) Validity of the transfer order-from Lucknow Division to Koraput Division: As already noticed, the Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order of transfer before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court by filing writ petition No. 602 (S/B) of 1994. By order dated 20.1.1998 (Annexure-22/4) the said writ petition was dismissed. Perusal of the aforesaid order shows that all the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner did not find favour and were rejected by a detained order. Against the said order, he filed SLP before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 11.7.1995 (Annexure-35). The dispute entering around his transfer came up directly for decision before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court which upheld the validity of transfer. The said decision is final, conclusive and binding between the parties, the same having been rendered by competent Court. The dispute entering around his transfer came up directly for decision before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court which upheld the validity of transfer. The said decision is final, conclusive and binding between the parties, the same having been rendered by competent Court. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the Petitioner in this Court challenging the very order of transfer is hit by the doctrine of res judicata and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the said Order of transfer no more exists as it has merged in the order terminating his services. The Petitioner, therefore, cannot challenge the order of transfer in this Court on the plea that the order of termination of his services is available to be challenged in this Court. (ii) Let us now proceed to discuss the circumstances under which the services, of the Petitioner as Assistant Engineer (Civil) have come to an end. The order of termination of service is at Annexure-24. The authority had to get the order of termination of service published in the newspapers (The 'Dainik Jagaran and Times of India') on 10th of June 1996 because he tried to evade receipt of it. The order is extracted hereunder: Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (Koraput Division) Personnel Department Office Order No. 44/292 22nd March 1995. Shri S.K. Srivastava. 1635/6. Vishal Khand-2, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow - 226010. Sub : Less the Lien under Rule No. 10 of the HAL Conduct. Discipline and Appeal Rules. Consequent upon your transfer from Lucknow Division to Koraput Division, you were relieved in Lucknow on 11.5.94 and thereafter you were to join to Koraput Division after availing the joining time as per rules. 2. Having no reported the Division and having remained unauthorisedly absent from duty, the lien on your appointment as Asst. Engineer (Civil) stood automatically lost as per Rule No. 10 of HAL. Conduct. Discipline and Appeal Rules with immediate effect. For Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (Koraput Division) Dy. General Manager (P & A) Consequent upon his transfer, the Petitioner was relieved from Lucknow Division of 11.5.1994 to join his new station at Sunabeda under Koraput Division in the State of Orissa. Admittedly he had not joined at his new posting till the impugned order of termination of service was passed. On his failure to join his duty at Koraput Division, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. Admittedly he had not joined at his new posting till the impugned order of termination of service was passed. On his failure to join his duty at Koraput Division, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. Although notice was given to him about the disciplinary proceeding in his last known address, he did not choose to appear for the reasons best known to him. In the circumstances, the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry ex parte and submitted report holding him guilty of the charge i.e. unauthorised absence. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties it appears that copy of the inquiry report was sent to the Petitioner to enable him to submit his explanation with a clear note that if he failed to submit explanation, the Management would be at liberty to take action as deemed fit. There was no response in this regard from the Petitioner. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority having regard to the facts and circumstances passed the order terminating his services. The Petitioner even to receive the order of termination although the same was sent to him by registered letter. The order of termination was passed on 22.9.1995. The Petitioner in his wisdom challenged the order of termination of service before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court by way of a writ petition which was dismissed by order dated 21.3.1996 (Annexure-47) on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the cause of action did not arise, within its jurisdiction. The Petitioner doggedly fought by filing a review petition before the Lucknow Bench, but without any success. Thereafter, he filed SLP before the Supreme Court which was delayed by 621 days. The Supreme Court did not accept the explanation offered by him for condoning the delay which is evident from the order dated 4.5.1998 at Annexure-49. Consequently the SLP was dismissed. 5. The Point that arises for consideration is whether in the circumstances, this Court should not at naught the order of termination of his services. As narrated above, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for unauthorised absence in not joining at Koraput Division. As he did not appear before the Inquiry Officer, the inquiry had to proceed ex parte. In the circumstances, the decision taken by the management terminating his service cannot be faulted with. As narrated above, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for unauthorised absence in not joining at Koraput Division. As he did not appear before the Inquiry Officer, the inquiry had to proceed ex parte. In the circumstances, the decision taken by the management terminating his service cannot be faulted with. We may state here that the learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not question the validity or otherwise of Rule 10 of H.A.L. Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules in exercise of which the impugned order was passed, it is relevant to further note that the impugned order terminating his services was passed in March, 1995 and he has filed this writ petition in this Court challenging the said order of termination on 17.8.1998. There has been thus delay of more than three years in approaching this Court. Although there is no specific period of limitation for filing writ petition, a writ Court may refuse to exercise its extraordinary power where the applicant is guilty of laches or undue delay in absence of any satisfactory explanation. We cannot lose sight of the observation of the Supreme Court in its order dated 4.5.1998 (Annexure-49) when it refused to condone delay of 621 days in filing SLP against the order of Lucknow Bench dismissing his writ petition challenging the very order of termination of services. The Supreme Court has clearly observed that the delay of 621 days was not satisfactorily explained by the Petitioner. Therefore, this delay has remained unexplained and we cannot accept any further explanation by the Petitioner in this regard. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is also liable to be rejected on the ground of delay. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Pradip Mohanty, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed