Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-This D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 012.2000 passed in the Civil Writ Petition No. 6698/1998 whereby the writ petition has been held to be barred by principle of res judicata. 2. The present writ petition was filed with the following prayers:-It is, therefore, respectfully preyed that this writ petition may be allowed and the respondents be directed to consider the representation (Annexure-3) dated 07.09.1998 alongwith Judgment dated 14.07.1998 (Annexure-2) and to review the order of punishment passed against the petitioner in disciplinary proceedings and to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and continuity in service. 3. Prior to filing of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner had filed a petition against the order of dismissal from service dated 31.03.1992 which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6499/1993 and the same was dismissed on 04.01.1994. The order of the dismissal of the said writ petition dated 04.01.1994 has not been annexed by the petitioner alongwith present writ petition. 4. Against the dismissal order of the writ petition dated 04.01.1994 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6499/1993, the petitioner filed a D.B. Special Appeal which was dismissed in defect, a copy of which is on record and the same is reproduced hereunder:- This Special Appeal was filed on 04.02.1994 without affixing any Court fee on the memorandum of appeal. Although more than one year and nine months have elapsed, the defect has not been removed. None is even present on behalf of the appellant. It is also appears that the appellant is no more interested in prosecuting this Special Appeal and as such no steps had been taken to pay the Court fee. The appeal is consequently rejected and stands disposed of accordingly. 5. But considering the controversy raised in the present writ petition, we thought it proper to call for the file of the High Court of the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition No. 6499/1993 which was preferred against the dismissal order of the punishment. The appeal is consequently rejected and stands disposed of accordingly. 5. But considering the controversy raised in the present writ petition, we thought it proper to call for the file of the High Court of the dismissal of the earlier Writ Petition No. 6499/1993 which was preferred against the dismissal order of the punishment. The prayer of earlier Writ Petition No. 6499/1993 and relevant portion of the Judgment dated 011.1994 in earlier writ are reproduced hereunder:- Prayer of earlier Writ No. 6499/1993:- It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and- .(i) Byan appropriate writ, order or direction the order of dismissal from service dated 31.03.1992 (Annexure-17) passed by the respondent No. 3 and the order of enquiry officer dated 08.02.1991 (Annexure-13) and the order of Appellate Authority dated 23.04.1992 (Annexure-19) be quashed and set aside. .(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the petitioners dismissal from service be declared to be void, illegal inoperative and ineffective as against the petitioner and the petitioner be declared to be in continuous and uninterrupted service with all consequential benefits. (iii) Any other relief which this Honble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be given to the petitioner. (iv) The cost of writ petition may be allowed in favour of the petitioner. Relevant portion of the Judgment dated 011.1994:- “Conduct of the petitioner in deceiving Ms. Kamla Karotia by pretending that he is unmarried and trying to keep her as second wife, and conduct of subjecting Ms. Kamla Karotia to physical assault and threatening her in the Court premise, is sufficient to attract the provisions of Rules 3 and 4 of 1971 Rules. Therefore, if for his acts the petitioner has been found guilty, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority has exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing penalty on the petitioner. Shri Sharmas argument that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is excessive, merits summary rejection. Being a member of the Police Force, the petitioner owed a greater responsibility to behave sensibly and properly in the public. His exhibition of conduct which indicated immoral deprevation, sufficiently justifies the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service. Shri Sharmas argument that the penalty imposed on the petitioner is excessive, merits summary rejection. Being a member of the Police Force, the petitioner owed a greater responsibility to behave sensibly and properly in the public. His exhibition of conduct which indicated immoral deprevation, sufficiently justifies the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service. So far as the appellate order is concerned, as I have already observed, even though the appellate authority has not given detailed reasons, in my view no prejudice has been suffered by the petitioner in the absence of reasons. No other point has been argued. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.” 6. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 11.01.1989 levelling the allegation that he misrepresented himself as unmarried before Ms. Kamla Karotiya, a student of S.T.C. Residency School, Udaipur and kept her as his wife. It was further alleged that when Ms. Karotiya came to know about the fact that the petitioner was already married, she disassociated herself from the petitioner. It was further alleged that the petitioner gave the beating and insulted Ms. Karotiya. It was also mentioned that a criminal case for offences under Sections 420, 389, 342, 330 and 323, IPC was registered against him. .7. On the said charge-sheet the departmental enquiry was conducted and ultimately the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 31.03.1992. Against the order dated 31.03.1992, the petitioner filed a writ petition which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition 6499/1993 and the same was dismissed on 04.01.1994 on merits. Against which the D.B. Special Appeal was filed and the same also was dismissed in default on 012.1995. .8. The questions which require consideration of this Honble Court are:- .(1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to file second writ petition merely on the basis of the acquittal? .(2) Whether the circular of the State Government is applicable even after the dismissal of the writ petition on merits filed against the punishment order? 9. The present writ petition was dismissed in limine and in appeal the notices under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay were issued and Government put appearance at the time of disposal of the application as well as the appeal but no reply to the writ petition was filed. 10. 9. The present writ petition was dismissed in limine and in appeal the notices under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay were issued and Government put appearance at the time of disposal of the application as well as the appeal but no reply to the writ petition was filed. 10. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner is that the acquittal gives him fresh cause of action for filing the representation before the Government for re-consideration of the dismissal order and principle of res judicata will not apply in the instant case. The Counsel for the appellant-petitioner further submits that he is not challenging the dismissal on merits, he simply praying for a direction to the respondent for re-consideration of his case in the light of acquittal as per Government circular of 1998. In support of his submission the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner relied on the Judgment of 2003 (1) RLR page 438, Dr. Ajay Srivastabva, etc. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors; AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1416 Capt M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Ors; RLR 1987 (1) page 318, Bijendra Singh vs. Administrator, Sikar Kendriya Bank Ltd., 1982 (2) All India Services Law Journal page 422 (Punjab and Haryana), Miss Savita vs. State of Haryana & Ors; and AIR 1971 Supreme Court 330, Manni Lal vs. Parmai Lal & Ors., 11. The learned Counsel for the respondents supported the Judgment of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the second writ petition is barred by principle of res judicata. 12. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties, perused the record of the case and further considered the Judgment s cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant-petitioner. 13. Before dealing with the Judgment s cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner, we would like to mention an important fact that the criminal case was pending when the earlier writ petition was pending before this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could have very well argued that liberty be given to him for making representation in case the result of the criminal case may go in his favour, to the disciplinary authority but no such argument was raised and the writ petition was dismissed on merits. The learned Counsel for the petitioner could have very well argued that liberty be given to him for making representation in case the result of the criminal case may go in his favour, to the disciplinary authority but no such argument was raised and the writ petition was dismissed on merits. Another important aspect of the matter is that the dismissal is not based on any of the ingredients of offence of the criminal offence nor the same is based on conviction which have the direct effect on the dismissal order, after acquittal, otherwise also, present dismissal order has been passed after full enquiry by the departmental authority and the misconduct proved therein which is short of offence and the nature and scope of both is different as would be evident from the reproduction of the charge-sheet which reads as under:- iznkZ &1 a tksu mn;iqy vki Jh eksguyky dkfu tc o"k Z 1988&1989 esj e asinLFkkfir Fks rc ,l-Vh-lh tksmsUlh Ldw mn;iqj dh Nk=k dqekjh djksfr;k dks cgyk Qqlykdj Lo;a dks vfookfgr crkdj mls /kks[kk nsdj iRuh ds #i esa lkFk j[kk tc mls vkids 'kknh 'knqk gksus dk irk yxk rks mlds lkFk ekjihV nqO;Zogkj fd;kA tc dqekjh deyk djksfr;k vkils vyx gksdj iqu% Nk=kokl esa jgus yxh] mls /kefd;ka nsdj vkrafdr fd;kA bl laca/k esa vkids fo:) iqfyl Fkkuk gkFkhiksy ¼mn;iqj½ esa eq- ua- 28@1988 /kkjk 420@342@30 o 323 Hkk-n-la-ds vUrxZr ntZ gqvkA ftlesa U;k;ky; esa pkyku is'k fd;k x;k gSA R; jktLFkku flfoy lfoZ vkidk mDr d`lst ¼d.MDV½ :Yl 1971 ds fu;e 4¼2½¼3½ dh ifjf/k esa essa vkrk gSaaA ;g vkids nqjkpj.k dk |ksrd gSA iqfyl v/kh{kd 14. Finding of the criminal Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- 7& vfHk;Dr eksguyky ij /kkjk 417 Hkk-na-la-dk vkjksi gS ftlesa vfHk;ksqqtu i{k dks fl) djuk Fkk fd vfHk;Dr us fnlEcj] 1987 esa ,l-Vh-lh Nk=kokl mn;iqj esa ifjokfn;k deyk dqekjh ls vius iwoZ fookg dks Nqikrs gq, Qqlyk dj csbZekuh iwoZd Ny ls vkk; ls fookg dj crkSj iRuh vius ikl j[kk o mls 'kkjhfjd o ekufld {kfr dkfjr dhA 8& mDr vkjksi ckcr ih-M-12 eqLrxhlk deyk dk dFku gS fd og o"kZ 1987 esa ,l-Vh-lh-dj jgh Fkh rc eksguyky mlds gksLVy esa vk;k o dgk fd og mn;iqj esa ukSdjh djrk gS mldh iRuh ugha gS vkSj rqels laca/k djuk pkgrk g¡w A fQj og gksLVy esa fgj.kexjh pyh xbZ Fkh tgk¡ eksguyky jgrk Fkk A mlus lkspk fd blds vkSjr ugha gS ,oa mls viuk Hkh ?kj clkuk gS blfy;s mlds lkFk pyh xbZ A tc bldh iRuh gksus dk irk pyk rks >xMs gksus yxsA eksguyky mls ekjihV djus yxk A eksguyky mls dksVZ esa yk;k mlds uke ls LVkEi [kjhnk A odhy lkgc dks ,d Lyhi nhA fgj.kexjh esa gh mls [kkyh dkxt ij gLrk{kj djokAs eqLrxhlk us Lyhi odhy dks nh bl ckcr xqLlk gksdj vfHk;Dr us mls ihVk ml LVkEi ij dksbZ fy[kki<+h ugha gqbZ Fkkus esa fjiksVZ iznkZ ih- 5 dhAq 9& eqLrxhlk blesa vkxs crk;k fd vfHk;Dr us mlls 'kknh ugha dh] u gh mlus mlls 'kknh dh] u mlds fnekx qesa ;g fopkj vk;k fd mlus vfHk;Dr ls 'kknh dj yh gksA eqLrxhlk us vkt ,d vkosnu Hkh is'k fd;k fdq og bl eqdnesa dh dk;Zokgh vkxs ugha pykuk pkgrhA bl izdkj Lo;a eqLrxhlk us vfHk;Dr ls 'kknh ds rF; ls badkj fd;k gS ,oa vfHk;Dr ij eq[; vkjksi gh ;g gS fd mlus iwoZ iRuh ds gksrs gq, iwoZ fookg ds rF; dks fNikrs gq, eqLrxhlk ds lkFk NyiowZd fookg fd;kAq vr% eqLrxhlk ds c;kuksa ls gh eqlrxhlk o vfHk;Dr dk fookg gksus dk rF; xyr lkfcr gks tkrk gSA ,lsq nkk esa vkjksfir vijk/k lkfcr ugha gS ,oa eqLrxhlk o c;ku ls gh vfHk;Dr ds fo#) vkjksi lkfcr ugha gS qs,oa eqLrxhlk o c;ku ls gh vfHk;Dr ds fo#) vkjksi lkfcr ugha gksrk ,lh nkk esa vU; fdlh xokg ds qc;kuksa dh [kkl vko;drk ugha gSaA fu"d"kZ ;g gS fd vfHk;Dr nk"seqfDr dh vf/kdkjh gSA fd;k tkrk gSA mlds tekur eqpyds fujLr gksA 10& vfHk;Dr eksguyky iq= ,dfyax th jsqxj dh ml ij vkjksfir vijk/k /kkjk 417 Hkk-na-la-ds vkjksi ls nks"keqDr 15. The Judgment relied on by Counsel for the petitioner reported in RLR 1987 (1) page 318 is regarding dismissal on account of conviction, therefore, the same is distinguishable. 16. In 2003 (1) RLR Head-Note of which deals with the issue that there cannot be estoppel on pure question of law. Here in the instant case, no estoppel on question of law, is involved and only the question of facts, as would be evident from the contents of the charge-sheet, are involved, therefore, the same is different. The Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1971 SC 330 , is of a simple conviction results in disqualification conviction and such conviction is wiped out on acquittal. The case reported in AIR 1999 S.C 1416 , does not deal with where order dismissing after enquiry is upheld by Court and thereafter acquittal order was passed. In 1982 (2) All India Service Law Journal (Punjab and Haryana) page 422, after dismissal of earlier writ petition rejected on merits the merit number was revised from 20 to 18. Therefore, all the Judgment s are distinguishable and are of no help. 17. In both the writ petitions filed by MohanLal Jatolia, in substance, the order of dismissal dated 31.06.1992 was/is under challenge, although, on different grounds. Therefore, the principle of res judicata will apply and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and his Judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. 18. In view of the above, the Judgment of the learned Single Judge is upheld, the present special appeal is dismissed with no order as to coasts.