Judgment :- The petitioner, has challenged the order dated 112. 1998 of the Medical Officer, Government Primary Health Centre, Nallur, Cuddalore District, by which a sum of Rs.71,254/- was directed to be recovered in instalments from the salary of the petitioner. The impugned order of recovery is challenged on the ground that no notice was given to him and therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. According to the petitioner, he had not made any misrepresentation or furnished wrong details when the pay was revised in the post of Selection Grade of Extension Educator. It is seen from the pleadings that the petitioner, along with four other Block Extension Officers, have already challenged the orders of recovery in O.A.No.6029 of 1995 before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said Original Application, was withdrawn without getting any consent from the petitioner. On the directions of the Joint Director of Health Services, Family welfare Wing, Cuddalore, second respondent dated 012. 1998, the Medical Officer, Nallur Primary Health Centre, Cuddalore District, the third respondent has sought for recovery. 3. Reiterating the averments made in the writ petition and placing reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in W.P.No.5961 of 2007 dated 25.04.2008, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside for violation of natural justice. 4. It is an admitted fact the Original Application No.6029 of 1995 filed earlier by the petitioner along with four other persons before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal has been withdrawn without leave to file a fresh writ petition for the same cause of action. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, without getting consent from him, the Original Application has been withdrawn by the other applicants. If that be the case, the petitioner ought to have moved the Tribunal immediately for rectification of the mistake said to have been committed by others. The petitioner has not chosen to do so. O.A.No.6029 of 1995 has been dismissed as withdrawn on 21.08.1998 on the endorsement made by the learned counsel or the petitioner. 5. The endorsement made by the learned counsel is as follows: "The learned cousin for the applicant has made an endorsement to the effect that the Original Application may be dismissed as withdrawn. O.A.No.6029 of 1995 has been dismissed as withdrawn on 21.08.1998 on the endorsement made by the learned counsel or the petitioner. 5. The endorsement made by the learned counsel is as follows: "The learned cousin for the applicant has made an endorsement to the effect that the Original Application may be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the Original Application be hereby dismissed as withdrawn." 6. In a decision reported in 1998 Writ Law Report 756 (Re.Fr.J.G. Jesudas, The President Correspondent & Secretary, st. Judges College v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Secretary, Education Department, Fort St. George, Madras – 9 and another) at paragraph No.10, the court held as follows: Similar question came for consideration in the decision reported in (1987) I SCC 5 (Sarguja Transport v. S.T.A.T.) Their Lordships said that withdrawal of an earlier writ petition is similar to withdrawal of a suit and it amounts to waiver of the relief sought for, and if a second writ petition is filed, that will amount to even abuse of process of court. Then, finally, in paragraphs 8 and 9, their Lordships have found thus: "The question for our consideration is, whether it would or would not advance the cause of justice if the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code is adopted in respect of writ petitions filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India also, it is common knowledge that very often after a writ petition is heard for some time when the petitioner or his counsel "finds that the court is not likely to pass an order admitting the petition, request is made by the petitioner or by his counsel to permit the petitioner to withdraw from the writ petition without seeking permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A court which is unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit the withdrawal of the petition. It is plain that when once a writ petition filed in a High Court is withdrawn by the petitioner himself he is precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition because he cannot be considered as a party aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court. It is plain that when once a writ petition filed in a High Court is withdrawn by the petitioner himself he is precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition because he cannot be considered as a party aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court. He may as stated in Daryao v. State of U.P. in a case involving the question of enforcement of fundamental rights file a petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the High Court. The relevant observation of this court in Daryoo case is to be found at page 593 and it is as follows: "If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar subsequent petition under Art.32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the court. We wish to make it clear that the conclusions thus reached by us are confined only tot he point of res judicata which has been argued as a preliminary issue in these writ petitions and no other. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ a petition filed by him in the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that article. On this point the decision in Daryao case is of in assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order 23 of the code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench hunting tactics. In any event, there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution once again ... (Emphasis supplied) Their Lordships also declared that this principle will not apply when a writ petition is filed involving personal liberty of an individual. In view of this declaration of law, I do not think that this writ petition is maintainable and consequently it is dismissed. 7. (Emphasis supplied) Their Lordships also declared that this principle will not apply when a writ petition is filed involving personal liberty of an individual. In view of this declaration of law, I do not think that this writ petition is maintainable and consequently it is dismissed. 7. In yet another decision reported in 1997 (2) Supreme Court Cases 534 (Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samit and others) at paragraph No.13, the court held as follows: 13.The High Court also was right in its conclusion that the second writ petition is not maintainable as the principle of constructive res judicata would apply. He filed the writ petition in first instance but withdrew the same without permission of the court with liberty to file the second writ petition, which was dismissed. Therefore, the second writ petition is not maintainable as held by the High Court in applying the correct principle of law. Thus considered we find no merit in the appeal for interference. 8. Therefore, without going into the merits of this case, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court, this writ petition is not maintainable as it is hit by the principles of constructive res judicata. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.