Judgment 1. The petitioner-appellant, in sum total, has filed four cases at the High Court. The first case was CWJC No. 3524 of 2002 with an order of 25 August, 1999. The next case was CWJC No. 11386 of 2001 which was disposed of on 13 September, 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner-appellant filed CWJC No. 12922 of 2002 in which the court recorded briefly that if the earlier direction of the court had not been complied with the High Court cannot receive successive writ petitions and the petitioner may move the court in its appropriate jurisdiction, if he was so advised that any direction of the court was not being complied. As the last order refers to the other cases and this is the order which has been challenged in the present letters patent appeal, this order is reproduced: "For the same relief, the petitioner has moved this court by filing CWJC No. 3524 of 1999, which was disposed of by order dated 25.8.1999 with certain directions. As the aforesaid directions were not being given effect to, the petitioner again filed CWJC No. 11386 of 2001, which was disposed of on 18.9.2001. Again the petitioner has moved this court, as the aforesaid direction has not been complied with. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner. If the order of this court has not been complied with, the petitioner, if so advised, may move this court in appropriate jurisdiction. This application is, accordingly, dismissed." 2. The present letters patent appeal is against the order of 13 December, 2002 dismissing the CWJC No. 12922 of 2002: Ram Shrestha Mandal V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. The interesting part of the record is three earlier writ petitions. None of the cases reflects on what exactly the controversy and the issue is about. Counsel for the petitioner also seems to be very shy on coming out on what the case is about. 3. This court has looked into the records of the petitions to decipher the bottom of the merits and issues. This part is contained in CWJC No. 3524 of 1999. The petitioner appellant was dismissed from service. He filed a departmental appeal. Even this departmental appeal had been dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. This court has looked into the records of the petitions to decipher the bottom of the merits and issues. This part is contained in CWJC No. 3524 of 1999. The petitioner appellant was dismissed from service. He filed a departmental appeal. Even this departmental appeal had been dismissed for want of prosecution. Thus, the petitioner-appellant had come to the High Court attempting to restore his departmental appeal. Now the petitioner-appellant contends that the proceedings are not going on. 4. If there be a direction of the court which is not being followed, the petitioner- appellant chose to file three writ petitions but did not file a contempt application. 5. What exactly is the departmental proceeding about? 6. On 28 December, 1998, the petitioner-appellant, in effect, had been charged of violating the service rules, rule 23. The allegation was that he had a wife and he married again; that he would not give maintenance to the children and his wife. Apparently, the complaint was made by his wife. This allegation against the petitioner is in a chargesheet which refers to an earlier marriage and a court marriage. 7. While the conduct of the petitioner-appellant may be a matter between him, his conscience and his personal life, this court is of the opinion that this is not a case in which the court can certify all the other orders, on record as bad or set aside the last order dated 13 December, 2002. It is entirely up to the petitioner-appellant and his department, whether in the departmental appeal or otherwise to sort out the mess which he has placed himself in. 8. Thus, dismissed.