Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 958 (JHR)

Madan Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2010-10-01

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2010
JUDGMENT : J.C.S. RAWAT, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 6.12.2003 (annexure 8) by which the appellate authority Respondent No. 2 has confirmed the order dated 18.4.2000 (Annexure-7) passed by the Director, Primary Education Department, Government of Jharkhand contained in annexure 3 by which the two increments of the Petitioner have been withheld with cumulative effect. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner preferred a writ petition being WP (S) No. 5096 of 2002 which was decided by order dated 29.7.2003. After considering the writ petition and the entire documents annexed therewith, the Court was of the opinion that the order of punishment has been passed after complying with the requirements of law. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the same However, liberty was given to the Petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order of punishment as contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice for the reasons of non supply of the enquiry report to the Petitioner and that the departmental proceedings had been proceeded ex parte. He further contended that the enquiry report is also arbitrary and illegal inasmuch as it suffers from bias, prejudice and mala fide because the enquiry officer and the appellate authority is the same person who had initiated the enquiry against the Petitioner. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents refuted the contention and contended that the Petitioner had already filed writ petition challenging the impugned order (annexure 7) before this Court in which the Court has specifically held that the impugned order of punishment is not in violation of the of the requirements of law. A copy of the said order has been filed as annexure A to the counter affidavit. 5. It is a settled principle of law that if a cause has already been decided and the Petitioner could have taken the plea regarding non supply of copy of the enquiry report or bias on the part of the Respondents in the same writ petition. 5. It is a settled principle of law that if a cause has already been decided and the Petitioner could have taken the plea regarding non supply of copy of the enquiry report or bias on the part of the Respondents in the same writ petition. The Petitioner did not take this plea in the earlier writ petition and in the subsequent writ petition, he cannot take fresh plea because it would be treated that the said plea had already been adjudicated by the principles of res judicata. Thus, the Petitioner cannot agitate the same matter in this writ petition. 6. Learned Counsel pointed out after the order of this Court, the Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, which was decided by the appellate authority (Respondent No. 2) which is annexure 8 to the writ petition which has been summarily decided. Learned Counsel for the Respondents refuted the contention. 7. Perusal of the record clearly reveals that after going through the record, the appellate authority was satisfied to come to the conclusion that such an order impugned is in accordance with law and the said order which is sought to be reviewed in the garb of this writ petition cannot be reviewed as there is no scope for judicia review of the said or of appellate authority because the order conforms to the requirements of law. 8. The Petitioner has not challenged the order passed in the previous writ petition No. 5096 of 2002 before any appellate authority and this attained finality. Thus, I do not find any force in the writ petition which is fit to be dismissed. 9. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to coats.