Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking for a direction to pay full salary from 04.01.2002 till the date in the post of Secretary. The petitioner was working as a Secretary in the second respondent Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Pukkiravari, Thirukovilur Taluk, Villupuram District. 2. According to the petitioner, he was placed under suspension by the second respondent - Special Officer on 04.01.2002 and a charge memo was issued on 05.09.2003. It was claimed that he was not even paid subsistence allowance. By G.O.Ms.No.55 Co-operation Department dated 24.03.2000, the post of Secretary was brought under Common Cadre System and the regulation framed for Common Cadre provided for subsistence allowance. The petitioner had challenged the suspension order and the charge memo by in W.P.No.41209 of 2006 before this Court. This Court by an order dated 31.10.2006 allowed the writ petition and set aside the charge memo and suspension which were admittedly passed by the Special Officer. This Court held since the post of Secretary is a Common Cadre, it is only the cadre authority who can deal with the disciplinary action against the secretary. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the second respondent Society filed writ appeal being W.A.No.172 of 2007. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal by an order dated 02.07.2008, wherein it was observed as follows:- "As the first respondent-writ petitioner was suspended on 04.01.2002, followed by charge memo issued on 5.9.2003 and continued under suspension for about four years and eight months, without conclusion of the enquiry, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the order of suspension and the charge memo have been set aside. So far as the departmental proceedings are concerned, in view of the fact that there is allegation of irregularities and that the learned single Judge has given liberty to the competent authority to initiate fresh proceedings, we uphold the said observation of the learned single Judge. Whoever may be the competent authority, he may initiate proceedings within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not yet initiated due to the pendency of the present appeal. Whoever may be the competent authority, he may initiate proceedings within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not yet initiated due to the pendency of the present appeal. The Writ Appeal is disposed of." (Emphasis added) Therefore, the petitioner claimed that in view of setting aside of the suspension and charge memo, he is entitled for full salary from 04.01.2002. 4. In the present writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 24.07.2008. Despite notice being served, the respondents did not appear. Therefore, this Court directed the first respondent - Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to appear before this Court with all relevant records vide order dated 17.03.2010. Accordingly, the first respondent appeared and filed a counter affidavit together with supporting documents. 5. It is seen from the typed set of papers filed along with the counter affidavit that the petitioner had filed series of writ petitions. He filed W.P.No.29242 of 2004 seeking for a direction to forbear the respondents from conducting an enquiry in terms of the charge memo dated 05.09.2003 until the finalisation of the criminal proceedings. This Court held that the enquiry can be completed within 60 days and if the findings are against the petitioner, the same shall be kept in abeyance for a maximum period of two years from the date of the order viz.,04.05.2005. As against the said order, W.A.No.1315 of 2005 was filed by the Society. That writ appeal came to be disposed of by an order dated 25.03.2009 holding that since the period specified therein viz., two years had already come to an end, the writ appeal had become infructuous. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13966 of 2004, challenging the proceedings of suspension dated 04.01.2002 and that writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge on 19.05.2004. Against which, the second respondent filed W.A.No.3012 of 2004. That writ appeal came to be allowed by a Division Bench on 26.06.2007 and the Society was directed to review the continuance of the petitioner. It was thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.41209 of 2006, challenging the suspension and the chargememo which was allowed by a learned Judge on 31.10.2006. Against which the Society filed the Writ Appeal W.A.NO.172 of 2009 and the order passed by the Division Bench is already extracted above. 7. It was thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.41209 of 2006, challenging the suspension and the chargememo which was allowed by a learned Judge on 31.10.2006. Against which the Society filed the Writ Appeal W.A.NO.172 of 2009 and the order passed by the Division Bench is already extracted above. 7. Once again the petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P.No.17600 of 2008, challenging the proceedings dated 26.06.2008 passed by the first respondent asking him to show case on the penalty to be proposed against him. By an order dated 04.12.2009, this Court after noting all the previous orders, in paragraphs 7 to 9 held as follows: "7. Since the said order has become final, there is no other option to the respondents except to implement the order passed by this Court. There is only one difficulty. Subsequent to passing of the order by this Court, the Government by G.O.Ms.No.122, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CN1) Department dated 4.7.2008 has taken out the post of Secretaries of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank from the purview of the Common Cadre. Therefore, as of now, it is only the Special Officer, who alone can deal with the matter. In paragraph 8 of the said Government Order, it is stated as follows: "8. In respect of cases which are pending till the date of issue of the order, the cadre authority shall continue to deal with such cases till its finalisation." 8. Therefore, if any disciplinary proceedings are already initiated, then the common cadre authority will proceed with the said proceedings as if the order is still in force. In that view of the matter and also to give effect to the order passed by this Division Bench, it has to be stated that the proceedings of the petitioner is deemed to be pending with reference to the misconduct committed by him. 9. Therefore, the 1st respondent is hereby directed to proceed by issuing a fresh charge memo and after calling for explanation, complete the disciplinary action in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed." 8. Only after filing the said writ petition, the petitioner filed the present writ petition once again seeking for payment of subsistence allowance. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed." 8. Only after filing the said writ petition, the petitioner filed the present writ petition once again seeking for payment of subsistence allowance. Subsequent to the filing of W.P.No.17600 of 2008 and the present writ petition W.P.No.17610 of 2008, the petitioner preferred another writ petition being W.P.No.26898 of 2009, challenging the fresh charge memo issued by the first respondent on 27.02.2009. On 23.12.2009, this Court granted an interim stay. Subsequently, the writ petition came to be disposed of on 26.02.2010. By a detailed order, this Court dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.10,000/-. In paragraphs 9 and 10, it was observed as follows:- "9.Apart from that fact, the petitioner has no case on merits, for his conduct in securing an ex-parte interim order by suppressing the material facts, the writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary costs. The very issue that was raised herein was considered in the earlier W.P.No.17600 of 2008. It is the very same counsel who had also appeared before this Court. 10. In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid by the petitioner to the second respondent Cooperative Bank within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which appropriate criminal contempt will be initiated against him as per law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed." 9. All these facts were also brought out in the counter affidavit dated 23.03.2010. It was stated that the stage to pass final orders has already reached and the question of revoking the suspension will not arise. It was also stated that the petitioner during his tenure has caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,84,35,391/-. Besides filing series of writ petitions many times he had suppressed the filing of previous writ petitions. 10. In the light of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26898 of 2009 dated 26.02.2010, the present writ petition cannot be entertained. It is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) payable to the second respondent society. No costs.