Judgment :- 1. With the consent of counsel on either side, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of the above Writ Petition are set out below: (i) While the petitioner was working as a Secretary of Mottupatty Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter mentioned as the 'Society') from 1.6.1979 to 31.7.1997, an enquiry was held and certain irregularities relating to certain expenditures not supported by vouchers. etc. came to the light. The petitioner vas placed under suspension on 10.10.2001 and on a criminal complaint filed by the first respondent a case in Crime No. 11 of 2001 was registered for offences under Sections 408 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, A charge memo No.Rc.3353/2001 U.Mae. (Ni) dated 5.11.2001 was issued. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension and charge memo in W.P. Nos. 20837 and 20838 of 2002 on certain grounds, But the Writ Petitions were dismissed on 17.6.2002 and the Writ Appeals filed by the petitioner in W.A. Nos. 2937 and 2938 of 2002 were also dismissed by an order dated 23.10.2002 and the Disciplinary Authority was directed to complete the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. According to the petitioner, the second respondent has not yet completed the disciplinary proceedings. (ii) According to the petitioner. a domestic enquiry was conducted and a report had been submitted and on that basis the second respondent has issued a show cause notice No.Rc.3553/2001 U.Mae (Ni) dated 12.12.2003. This show cause notice is challenged in this Writ Petition on the ground that in respect of the same allegations leveled against the petitioner disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal proceedings have been initiated and the charges in the charge memo as well as in the F.I.R. are one and the same and as such prejudice will be caused to the petitioner in the defence of the criminal proceedings. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner is facing grave charges for offences under Sections 408 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code which involve complicated questions of fact and law and if the disciplinary enquiry is proceeded with, the defence of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings will he jeopardized and further if the disciplinary proceedings is concluded and the petitioner is dismissed from service and thereafter if the petitioner is acquitted, great injustice will be caused to the petitioner. On the said ground, the above Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned show cause notice dated 12.12.2003 and to forbear the second respondent from proceeding further with the disciplinary action against the petitioner till the criminal proceedings are finally decided by the Court. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein it is stated as follows: The petitioner had committed grave dereliction of duty while working as a Secretary of the Society between 1.6.1979 and 31.7.1997, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the judgment dated 23.10.2002 passed in W.A. Nos. 2937 and 2938 of 2002 was received by the second respondent on 27.11.2002, but the enquiry could not be completed within four months as directed by the Honourable Division Bench due to non-cooperation of the petitioner. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, the details of dates of enquiry and the non-cooperation of the petitioner have been met out in detail. Since the petitioner did not appear on 30.05.2003, the enquiry was concluded and an ex parte enquiry report had been submitted and the impugned show cause notice had been issued. It is further contended that the petitioner did not choose to offer any explanation and it is also contended that the criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are different and distinct and the same could be simultaneously proceeded with and there is no question of any double jeopardy. It is also contended that there are suppression of facts as evidenced by record. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Mr. P. Anbarasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon Capt. It is also contended that there are suppression of facts as evidenced by record. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Mr. P. Anbarasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Hints United and another, 1999 (2) CTC 579 (SC) and submitted that since the charges leveled against the petitioner in the charge memo as well as in the criminal case are one and the same, if the disciplinary proceedings are proceeded with, the petitioner's defence in the criminal proceedings will be affected and further submitted that since the allegations leveled against the petitioner are of a grave nature and involves questions of fact and law which are not simple the disciplinary proceedings should be quashed. 6. Countering the said contentions Mr. K.M. Srirangan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Chairman-cum-M.D., T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd v. K. Meerabai, 2006 (1) CTC 348 (SC) submitted that the scope of criminal proceedings in the Criminal Court and the scope of disciplinary proceedings in e Departmental Enquiry are quite distinct, exclusive and independent and there no bar for simultaneously proceeding with both the proceedings. He further tended that acquittal by a Criminal Court would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations in force and therefore even if the petitioner gets an acquittal in the Criminal Court that will s prevent the Society from continuing with the disciplinary proceedings and hence that cannot be a ground for quashing the impugned proceedings. The learned counsel further contended that in view of the judgment dated 23.10.2002 passed in W.A. Nos. 2937 and 2938 of 2002 confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 20837 and 20838 of 2002, the above Writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 7. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and wilier, 1999 (2) CTC 579 (SC), the Honourable Supreme Court of India after referring to a plethora of decisions deduced the following legal principles viz.: (i) "Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. In Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and wilier, 1999 (2) CTC 579 (SC), the Honourable Supreme Court of India after referring to a plethora of decisions deduced the following legal principles viz.: (i) "Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusions of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature in that case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the Departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest." The facts of this cast have to be considered in the light of the above said principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The prayer in writ Petition for quashing the impugned show cause notice cannot be granted and if at all the petitioner is entitled to any relief, the petitioner ought to have prayed only for stay of the disciplinary proceedings and not for quashing the same. The prayer in writ Petition for quashing the impugned show cause notice cannot be granted and if at all the petitioner is entitled to any relief, the petitioner ought to have prayed only for stay of the disciplinary proceedings and not for quashing the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced before this Court the charge-sheet filed in the criminal case and the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation to enable the Court to find out as to whether the charges leveled against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings and in the criminal proceedings are one and the same and whether the charges are based on the same set of facts and whether both the charges are sought to be proved by same set of witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not advanced any arguments to show as to how the allegations and charges in the disciplinary proceedings and the allegations and charges in the criminal proceedings are one and the same. 8. As laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India, if the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show as to how the charge in the criminal case against the petitioner is of a grave nature and the learned counsel miserably failed to show that the criminal case involves complicated questions of law and fact. Admittedly, the criminal case instituted against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthangarai is in respect of offence under Section 408, I.P.C. (Criminal breach of Trust by clerk or servant) and falsification of accounts punishable under Section 477-A, I.P.C., whereas the petitioner is charged in the departmental proceedings for his dereliction of duty while functioning as a Secretary of the Society and also for the loss caused to the society due to certain commissions and omissions on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the scope of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and the scope of the disciplinary proceedings in the departmental enquiry pending against he petitioner are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. Therefore, the scope of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and the scope of the disciplinary proceedings in the departmental enquiry pending against he petitioner are quite distinct, exclusive and independent of each other. In the considered view of this Court, no complicated questions of fact or law are involved in the criminal case and therefore this Court is of the view that there is no likelihood of any prejudice being caused to the petitioner if the two proceedings are simultaneously proceeded with. 9. As rightly submitted by Mr. K.M. Srirangan, learned counsel for the second respondent that even assuming without admitting that the petitioner is likely to be acquitted in the criminal case that will not prevent or stand in the way of the Society from proceeding further with the disciplinary proceedings as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the decision rendered in the case of Chairman-cum-M D., T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai, 2006 (1) CTC 348 (SC) in paragraph 21 of the said judgment, it is observed as follows: "21. Similarly, the learned single Judge was patently misconceived in reaching the conclusion that the acquittal of the respondent by the Court of C.J.M. clinched issue before the departmental enquiry, while losing sight of the well settled law that the scope of criminal proceedings in the Court of criminal law and the scope of disciplinary proceedings in a departmental enquiry are quite distinct and exclusive and independent". Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 10. This Court is of the considered view that on one another ground viz., on the `principle of res judicata' also, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. As stated above, the petitioner has conveniently neither produced the order passed in the Writ Petitions or in the Writ Appeals nor the affidavits filed in support of the said Writ Petitions. This Court called for the records relating to the Writ Appeal Nos.2937 and 2938 of 2002 and perused the same. In W.P. No. 20638 of 2002 the petitioner had prayed for the issued of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the charge memo dated 5.11.2001 and for a further direction. The said Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals arising there from have been dismissed. In W.P. No. 20638 of 2002 the petitioner had prayed for the issued of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the charge memo dated 5.11.2001 and for a further direction. The said Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals arising there from have been dismissed. While dismissing the Writ Appeals, the Honourable Division Bench directed the disciplinary authority to conduct and conclude the enquiry by affording opportunity to the appellant (the petitioner herein) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. But the petitioner, as stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed in this Writ Petition, had not fully co-operated with the enquiry officer and in fact the enquiry had been concluded and the report had been submitted by the enquiry officer and based on the report the impugned charge memo had been issued to the petitioner, which is now challenged in this Writ Petition. The said facts will clearly show that the petitioner at every stage of the disciplinary proceedings was bent upon protracting the same. The grounds raised in this Writ Petition might and ought to have been raised in the earlier Writ Petition viz., in W.P. No. 20838 of 2002, which were admittedly available to the petitioner at that time. But the petitioner had not raised the same. 11. In the case of Devilal v. S.T.O., AIR 1965 SC 1150 , at page 153, speaking for the Court, Gajendragadkar, C.J. Observed: "Though the Courts dealing with the question of the infringement of Fundamental Rights must consistently endeavour to sustain the said rights and should strike down their unconstitutional invasion, it would not be right to ignore the principle of res judicata altogether in dealing with Writ Petitions filed by citizens alleging the contravention of their fundamental Rights. Consideration of public policy cannot be ignored in such cases, and the basic doctrine that judgments pronounced by this Court are binding and must be regarded as final between the parties in respect of matters covered by them must receive due consideration". Consideration of public policy cannot be ignored in such cases, and the basic doctrine that judgments pronounced by this Court are binding and must be regarded as final between the parties in respect of matters covered by them must receive due consideration". Explaining the possibility of abuse of process of law, the learned Chief Justice made the following instructive observations which are worth quoting: "In the present case the appellant sought to raise additional points when he brought his Appeal before this Court by special leave: that is to say, he did not take all the pointes in the Writ Petition and thought of taking new points in appeal. When leave was refused to him by this Court to take those points in Appeal, he filed a new Petition in the High Court and took those points, and finding that the High Court but that is not all. At the hearing of this Appeal, he has filed another Petition asking for leave from this Court to take some more additional points and that shows that if constructive res judicata is not applied to such proceedings a party can file as many Petitions as he like and take one or two points every time. That clearly is opposed to considerations of public policy on which res judicata is based and would mean harassment and hardship to the opponent. Besides, if such a course is allowed to be adopted the doctrine of finality of judgments pronounced by this Court would also be materially affect.” (emphasis supplied) In this context it will be useful to refer to the following observations of Somervell, L.J., in Greenhalgh v. Mallard, 1947 (2) KB 426: “I think that ……….. Besides, if such a course is allowed to be adopted the doctrine of finality of judgments pronounced by this Court would also be materially affect.” (emphasis supplied) In this context it will be useful to refer to the following observations of Somervell, L.J., in Greenhalgh v. Mallard, 1947 (2) KB 426: “I think that ……….. it would be accurate to say that res judicata for this purpose is not confined to the issues which the Court is actually asked to decide, but that it covers issues or facts which are so clearly part f the subject-matter of the litigation and so clearly could have been raised that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of them.” If the above Writ Petition is considered in the light of the observations made by the honourable Supreme Court of India and the observations of Somervell, L.J., it could be seen that the contentions sought to be raised in this Writ Petition by the petitioner could have been raised in the earlier Writ Petition viz., in W.P.No.20838 of 2002 and that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow a new proceeding to be started in respect of issues which are so clearly part of the subject matter of the litigation in W.P.No.20838 of 2002. Therefore, the Writ Petition is barred by constructive res judicata. So, on this ground also, the above Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. The conduct of the petitioner in not cooperating with the enquiry officer in the enquiry proceedings in spite of the direction by the Honourable Division Bench to conclude the enquiry within a period of four months is condemnable. Non-production of copy of the order passed in the said Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals and the affidavits filed in support of the Writ Petitions seems to be deliberate. The filing of the above Writ Petition itself is a clear abuse of the process of this Court and this type of conduct on the part of the petitioner has to be viewed seriously. Therefore cost has to be imposed on the petitioner and accordingly the above Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000 (rupees Ten Thousand only). The filing of the above Writ Petition itself is a clear abuse of the process of this Court and this type of conduct on the part of the petitioner has to be viewed seriously. Therefore cost has to be imposed on the petitioner and accordingly the above Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000 (rupees Ten Thousand only). The petitioner shall deposit the said cost of Rs.10,000 to the Chief Justice Relief Fund within period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected W.P.M.P. and W.V.M.P. are closed.