Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1935 (DEL)

ZILE SINGH BIBYAN v. MANAGER BANK OF INDIA

2006-10-19

J.M.MALIK

body2006
J. M. MALIK, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the fourth or fifth writ petition filed by the petitioner on the same cause of action. The petitioner joined Bank of India on 25. 2. 1975. He was dismissed from service on 15. 10. 1999. On 14. 5. 1998, the petitioner was transferred to Bihar. A representation made by the petitioner did not ring the bell. It was alleged that the inquiry was made ex parte, and the petitioner was not given a chance to defend his case. The appeal filed by him was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-"a. approve and consent the civil Writ petition of the petitioner. b. issue a Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or Orders or directions for judicial review to continue the service of the petitioner. With all service benefits from 15. 5. 1998; c. The C. W. P. may kindly be allowed and Appellate Order dated 15. 10. 1999 annexure P-11 Order of Penalty dated 30. 7. 1999 Annexure P-9 and Transfer-cum-relieving order dated 13. 5. 1999 Annexure P-5 hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be exonerated of all the charges for which he was punished; d. This is a case where the transfer-cum-relieving order was illegal on account of violation of Basic Principles rule -2. 2 and 2. 3 and the aforesaid illegality was not on account of any fault on part of the petitioner but that of the respondent. Hence the respondent is liable to pay salary for the period from 15. 5. 98 till a fresh order of posting is passed by the mighty administration. " ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the respondents, the petitioner had filed writ petition being CW 4930/2000. This Court passed a detailed order dated 31. 10. 2000 wherein the petition being devoid of substance was rejected. On 12. 2. 2001, the Division Bench also dismissed the LPA. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by that order, appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme court. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 25. 2. 2000 dismissed the special leave petition. ( 5 ) THE Petitioner filed another writ petition before this Court. The said petition was dismissed on 23. 5. 2. 2001, the Division Bench also dismissed the LPA. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by that order, appellant filed an appeal before the Supreme court. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 25. 2. 2000 dismissed the special leave petition. ( 5 ) THE Petitioner filed another writ petition before this Court. The said petition was dismissed on 23. 5. 2002 wherein it was observed, ""the petitioner has now once again started another round of litigation alleging that since the transfer order was illegal, the non-joining of the petitioner in pursuance to the transfer order was valid and the dismissal of the petitioner was illegal. The dismissal of the petitioner has been upheld right till the Supreme Court. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that petition is totally mis-conceived is an abuse of process of court proceedings. Dismissed". ( 6 ) LPA No. 882/2002 was also dismissed vide order dated 27. 3. 2003. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by that order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. Vide its order dated 9. 5. 2003, the apex court dismissed the special leave petition. ( 8 ) THE petitioner filed next writ petition on the same ground which was dismissed on 17. 6. 2005. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by that order, the appellant filed the LPA No. 441/2005 and cm 2596/2005 which was again dismissed on 21. 2. 2005. ( 10 ) THE petitioner moved review petition which was also dismissed by the division Bench on 8. 4. 2005. ( 11 ) I have heard petitioner in person and perused his written submissions. I cannot sit as an Court of appeal over the matters already adjudicated by the single Judges, Division Benches and the Supreme Court. The case of the petitioner is clearly barred by the principles of res judicata as per K. Vidya sager vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2005 SC 2910 and Direct recruit Class II engg. officers' association vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1990 SC 1607 . In view of this, the petition has no force and the same is therefore dismissed.