Judgment :- Heard both sides. The petitioner who was working as a Secretary in the second respondent Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited, has come forward to challenge the proceedings, dated 27.2.2009, wherein and by which the petitioner was issued with a charge memo and was asked to submit his explanation within 15 days. 2. The petitioner was placed under suspension by an order, dated 4.1.2002. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the said suspension and the charge memo, dated 5.9.2003 by moving this court with W.P.No.41209 of 2006. The said writ petition was allowed by an order, dated 31.10.2006 giving liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings. Aggrieved by that order, the Bank filed a writ appeal being W.A.No.172 of 2007. The writ appeal was dismissed by the division bench with the following directions: "As the first respondent-writ petitioner was suspended on 4.1.2002, 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..." (Emphasis added) 3. The ground under which the earlier writ petition was allowed was that he being the Secretary of the Primary Agricultural cooperative Bank comes under the Common Cadre Services Regulations by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 24.3.2000. Therefore, it is only the joint Registrar, who is the Cadre authority can initiate action. Pursuant to the said order, the present action has been initiated. 4. The petitioner came to file W.P.No.17600 of 2008 before this court once again challenging the charge memo, dated 26.6.2008, asking him to show cause on the penalty to be proposed on him. This court by an order, dated 4.12.2009, after referring to the earlier order, in paragraph 7,8 and 9 observed as follows: 7. 4. The petitioner came to file W.P.No.17600 of 2008 before this court once again challenging the charge memo, dated 26.6.2008, asking him to show cause on the penalty to be proposed on him. This court by an order, dated 4.12.2009, after referring to the earlier order, in paragraph 7,8 and 9 observed 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." It is pursuant to these directions, the present impugned proceedings came to be issued. 5. It is rather shocking that this is the third round of litigation on the issue of jurisdiction, which has been settled already by this court. It is pursuant to the direction of this court, the proceedings have been kept intact and liberty was given to the Cadre authority to proceed with the disciplinary action. 6. 5. It is rather shocking that this is the third round of litigation on the issue of jurisdiction, which has been settled already by this court. It is pursuant to the direction of this court, the proceedings have been kept intact and liberty was given to the Cadre authority to proceed with the disciplinary action. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.122, Co-operation Food and Consumer Protection (CN1) Department, dated 4.7.2008, wherein the common cadre system was abolished. But, that fact has been noted in the order dated 4.12.2009 passed by this court, wherein paragraph 8 of the Government Order was extracted. By the said para, cases which were pending till the date of issue of the order, the Cadre authority shall continue to deal with such cases till its finalization. According to the petitioner, the learned Single Judge had set aside the charge memo as early as 31.10.2006 in W.P.No.41209 of 2006, and that order was confirmed on 2.7.2008 by the division bench. Hence on the date when the new G.O. was issued, (i.e. on 4.7.2008), there was no case pending against him. Hence the saving para of the G.O. cannot be pressed into service. 7. The learned counsel also submitted that only on the issuance of the charge memo, the process of disciplinary action begins. Since there was no charge memo pending on 4.7.2008, no further charge memo cannot be issued by the cadre authority, who ceased to be in existence after the G.O. It is a strange argument advanced by the petitioner. In the first instance, he challenged the power of the Special Officer who initiated action against the petitioner who had become a common cadre employee. When he succeeded in that effort, he now comes forward to state that he did not belong to the common cadre and it is only the Special Officer who has power to deal with him. It is rather unfortunate that the petitioner should still continue to file case after case to stall disciplinary action based upon serious charges levelled against him. On the date when the division bench gave liberty to proceed with the action, the division bench had confirmed the Single Judges order giving direction to the common cadre authority to proceed with the disciplinary action. Therefore, he was empowered by the order passed by this court to proceed with the action against the petitioner. 8. On the date when the division bench gave liberty to proceed with the action, the division bench had confirmed the Single Judges order giving direction to the common cadre authority to proceed with the disciplinary action. Therefore, he was empowered by the order passed by this court to proceed with the action against the petitioner. 8. When the petitioner started second round of litigation with W.P.No.17600 of 2008, this court had clarified the issue and directed to proceed with the enquiry. Having failed in his attempt to stall the action, his third attempt to stall the proceedings once again was totally illegal. It is also shocking to note that the petitioner did not even refer in the present affidavit about filing of the writ petition in W.P.No.17600 of 2008, which was disposed of on 4.12.2009 itself. The petitioner presented the present W.P. on 21.12.2009 and obtained an interim order. It is a clear case of suppression of material facts while filing the present writ petition. In paragraph 4(f), the petitioner had also averred in his sworn affidavit that for the same cause of action he had not filed any other writ petition previously. Therefore, it is a clear case of suppression of material facts. 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.