Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court, praying for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order of dismissal from service dated 6.12.2005, with a consequent prayer for issuance of a Writ, in the nature of Mandamus, to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The Petitioner was issued a Charge Memo, alleging misconduct. The reply to the said Charge Memo was filed. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed in conduct an enquiry. 3. The Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charges, and the Competent Authority, by agreeing with the Enquiry officer, and finding the explanation of the Petitioner to the show cause notice issued being unsatisfactory, terminated his services. 4. The Petitioner, instead of filing a Statutory Appeal against the order of punishment, filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In support of the Writ Petition, Affidavit ha been filed, without pleading any document. In absence of being pleaded in the Writ Petition, the documents cannot form part of the pleadings. 6. In the typed set of papers, the Petitioner attached a copy of F.I.R., Writ Petition Charge Memo, findings of the Enquiry Officer, impugned Order, final report in R.C.S. 162/2006 & Order in R.C.S. 162/2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Madurai. 7. When the Writ Petition came up for final hearing, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner tried to hand over Additional Typed Set of Papers, with Additional Affidavit, without disclosing under which provision of law, this Court, in exercise of Writ jurisdiction can take Additional Typed Set of Papers or Additional Affidavit, the copy of which has not been supplied to the Respondent, giving opportunity to the Respondent to controvert the averments made in the Additional Affidavit. 8. By virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of India, and of all other powers hereunto, enabling the High Court to make Rules, the Rules to regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been framed. 9. Rules 1 & 2, Appendix V of the Appellate Side Rules read as under: “1. 8. By virtue of Article 225 of the Constitution of India, and of all other powers hereunto, enabling the High Court to make Rules, the Rules to regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been framed. 9. Rules 1 & 2, Appendix V of the Appellate Side Rules read as under: “1. An Application for a direction, order or Writ, including a Writ Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, Certiorari, Quo Warranto or Prohibition (shall be by an Affidavit containing the facts and grounds and a petition containing the prayer) Petition to be entitled “Writ Petition NO. …. Of …..” and shall be filed in the office of the Registrar by the Petitioner or his duly authorized Advocate or Attorney. 2. Every such Petition shall set out the provision of law under which it is made, the name and description of the Petitioner and the Respondent, the nature of the relief sought and shall be accompanied by an Affidavit setting forth the facts and grounds of the relief sought, the other remedy, if any, available to the Petitioner and if not availed of, the reasons therefor. The Petition shall be signed by the Petitioner or his Advocate to Attorney”. 10. By way of amendment, after Rule 2 of Rules to regulate proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the following sub-rules have been inserted: “Rule 2(a): All the Affidavits filed in support of the Petition, Counter Affidavits, Affidavits in reply to the Counter Affidavit and any other Supplementary Affidavit filed by any person in a Writ Petition or Miscellaneous Petition shall clearly state at the concluding portion of such Affidavit whether the statements made in the Affidavit are based on knowledge, information and belief or on records. Where statements are based on information, the source of such information should be disclosed. Where statements are based on records, sufficient particulars of records as far as practicable, should be given to enable proper identification of records. Contentions in the Affidavit should be verified as based on legal advice. Rule 2(b): Every document referred to in the Affidavits of the Petitioner and filed as Annexure to the Affidavit shall be marked as documents as P series e.g., P1, P2, P3 and the marking shall be continued in respect of all additional annexures produced subsequently along with replies, Interlocutory Application/s, etc. Rule 2(b): Every document referred to in the Affidavits of the Petitioner and filed as Annexure to the Affidavit shall be marked as documents as P series e.g., P1, P2, P3 and the marking shall be continued in respect of all additional annexures produced subsequently along with replies, Interlocutory Application/s, etc. Rule 2(c): Every document referred to in the Affidavit of the Respondents hall be marked as R-Series e.g. R1, R2, R3 If there are more Respondents than one then the documents filed by the First Respondent along with the Affidavit shall be marked a Exhibits R1(a), R1(b)….R1(aa), R1(bb), etc. The documents referred to and filed by other Respondents shall be marked as R-2 series, R-3 series and so on and the marking shall be continued in respect of all additional annexures produced subsequently along with the interlocutory Applications or Additional Affidavits, etc. Rule 2(d): The Office of the High Court shall give continuous page numbers to all the papers filed subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition as and when they are filed and arrange them the order in which they are filed and shall prepare a consolidated index of all the papers before posting the case for hearing. The Paper Book filed by the Petitioner, the Counter Affidavit and Paper Book of the Respondents, the rejoinders, if any, and all the Affidavits, miscellaneous Petitions and Orders including Orders regarding services shall be kept in the same file so as to enable the Court to have immediate access to the same. Rule 2(e): No documents can be admitted in any Writ proceedings unless and otherwise it is referred to in an Affidavit”. 11. Though the amended Rules were not applicable, when the Writ Petition was filed, however, these Rules are now notified, and are supposed to be in force. It is, therefore, not possible to file Additional Typed Set of Papers or Additional Affidavit, without the documents forming part of the pleadings. (It seems amended Rules have been kept in abeyance, if that is no, these are required to be placed before the Full Court to decide as to whether these Rules are to be implemented or repealed, as these cannot be kept in abeyance for all time to come). 12. (It seems amended Rules have been kept in abeyance, if that is no, these are required to be placed before the Full Court to decide as to whether these Rules are to be implemented or repealed, as these cannot be kept in abeyance for all time to come). 12. However, the amended Rules may not be relevant for deciding the question whether Additional Affidavit and Additional Typed Set of Papers can be filed in Court, as was sought to be done. 13. Faced with the situation, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner made an oral request, for permission, to place on record the Additional Affidavit and Additional Typed Set of Papers. 14. There is no provision in the existing writ Rules, with regard to the filing of the Additional Affidavit or Additional Typed Set of Papers. In absence of the Rules, the Principles underlying the Original Side Rules/Civil Procedure Code is to be followed. 15. In the Original Side Rules, there is no provision for amendment of pleadings or filing of additional pleadings. 16. Regulation 37 of the amended Letters Patent also reads as under: “37 Regulation of Proceedings.- And, We do further ordain that it shall be lawful for the said High Court of judicature at Madras from time to time to make Rules and Orders for the purpose of regulating all proceedings in Civil cases which may be brought before the said High Court, including proceedings in its Admiralty, Vice-Admiralty, testamentary Intestate and Matrimonial jurisdiction, respectively: Provided always that the said High Court shall be guided in making such Rules and Orders as far as possible by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, being an act passed by the Governor-General-in-Council, and being Act No. VIII of 1859 and the provisions of any law which has been made, amending or altering the same, by competent legislative for India”. 17. A reading of Regulation 37 also shows that the Rules and orders to be framed are to be in consonance with the Civil Procedure Ode. Though this Court can frame the Rules, to regulate the proceedings, and absence thereof, the underlying Principles of the Civil Procedure Code apply to the proceedings to Writ Petitions. 18. If the underlying Principles of Civil Procedure Code are applied, then the only way to plead additional facts, is by way of amendment by seeking amendment of the Writ Petition. 19. 18. If the underlying Principles of Civil Procedure Code are applied, then the only way to plead additional facts, is by way of amendment by seeking amendment of the Writ Petition. 19. It is, therefore, necessary for a party to file an Application for amendment of the pleadings by giving reasons for such an amendment. 20. On the Application a specific order is required to be passed either allowing or disallowing the Application for amendment, after hearing the parties. 21. The party, is not permitted under the Rules, to hand over Additional Affidavit or Additional Typed Set of Papers in the Court, at the time of hearing of the Petition, without there being any specific order permitting them filing of Additional Pleadings or Documents. 22. On merit, when questioned, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly admitted, that the facts now sought to be pleaded byway of Additional Affidavit and Additional Typed Set of Papers were not the facts, which came into existence, after the filing of the Writ Petition, but were known to the Petitioner, even at the time of filing the Writ. 23. There is absolutely no explanation as to why these documents were not filed with the Writ Petition, when the Writ was originally filed, nor there is any explanation forthcoming as to why the documents were not pleaded, or are necessary for proper adjudication of the case. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Varinder Partap Singh Sandhu v. Pritam Singh Sarinh, 2010 (5) SCC 482, was pleased to lay down as under: “12. There is no dispute that the Society was registered in the year 1969. When the matters came up for consideration before this Court on 15.3.2010, this Court noted the contention of the Appellant that the High Court has relied upon a wrong constitution of the Society; that the Appellant’s claim was that the constitution of the Society was as per Annexure P-1, whereas according to the Respondents, the constitution of the Society was as per Annexure P-11; and that the Appellant had submitted that if the constitution of the Society was as per Annexure P-1, the First Respondent would be ineligible to be an office-bearer of the society. As there was a serious dispute as to whether the constitution relied upon by the High Court was really the constitution of the Society, this Court directed the Appellants and Respondents to produce certified copies of the constitution issued by the Registrar of Societies concerned in the State of Panjab. 13. In pursuance of it, the Appellant produced an attested copy of the constitution (a copy of which was already produced by him as Annexure P-1 to the Special Leave petition) stating that he has secured the attested copy from Guru Nanak Dev University and the Director of Public Instructions, Punjab. The copy produced is attested by the University authorities. This copy is different from what was relied upon by the High Court and supports the contention of the Appellant. The Appellant also submitted that the Registrar of Societies had not furnished the certified copy of the constitution on the ground that the old records had to be searched and it is not yet traced. The relevant portions of the said constitution are extracted below: “4. Membership-All these persons or their nominees who have donated land for the college site shall be the founder members and shall continue as such for their lives. Their nominees will continue as members after their death: “(b) Patrons- (i) Any person who pays Rs.25,000 or more or donate any property of the same value or collect Rupees fifty thousand will be patron for his life (ii) A nominee of the patron shall be member after his death and will continue as member during his life. (c) Permanent members- (i) Any person on payment of Rupees one thousand to the college Council shall be a donor member of the Council. He will be entitled to nominate his successors of life. (d) Representative members-A village or any institution or society shall have the right to send representative member for contributing at lease Rupees 5,000 to the Council funds. The Sarpanch or President of the Institution shall be such members. (d) Ordinarily members-Any person on payment of Rs.100 shall become an ordinary member of the College Council for five years. He will avail all rights of membership that he will not be entitled to vote. If and when be completes payment of one thousand, he shall have right to vote. … … … 7. (d) Ordinarily members-Any person on payment of Rs.100 shall become an ordinary member of the College Council for five years. He will avail all rights of membership that he will not be entitled to vote. If and when be completes payment of one thousand, he shall have right to vote. … … … 7. Managing Committee- The College Council shall have a Managing Committee, consisting of not more than 27 members. The Managing Committee shall be constituted in the following manner. (a) Nine members shall be elected by founder members from amongst themselves. (b) 17 members shall be elected by life and representative members of the College Council by a single non-transferable vote. (c) The Principal shall be ex officio member. (d) The patron shall in so fact be a member of Managing Committee in addition to 27 members abovementioned. 8. Office-bearers-The Managing Committee shall cannot be sustained.” 14. On the other hand, the First Respondent has filed an Affidavit stating that the Third Respondent was registered as No. 75 of 1969-1970 on 10.10.1969 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860; that the issue as to which of the constitutions is genuine (Annexure P-1 or Annexure P-11) does not affect his eligibility to be an office-bearer of the Third Respondent; that the constitution that was relied upon by the High Court (Annexure P-11) was not produced by him; but was produced ruing hearing by the Joint Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Society and that the constitution relied on by the High Court was not the original constitution, but a constitution adopted by the then Managing Committee on 14.9.2012. He also confirmed that the copy of the constitution which was with the University, was what was produced by the Appellant. 15. It is thus clear that the “constitution” relied on by the High Court was not the constitution of the Society. Therefore only thing that requires to be done is to ascertain whether Annexure P-1 produced by the Appellant (from the records of the University) is the real constitution of the Society. But, neither arty has produced the certified copy issued by the Registrar of Societies which would be the authentic constitution. The Appellant relies upon a copy furnished by the University. The copy relied upon by the High Court was not the constitution of the Society at all. But, neither arty has produced the certified copy issued by the Registrar of Societies which would be the authentic constitution. The Appellant relies upon a copy furnished by the University. The copy relied upon by the High Court was not the constitution of the Society at all. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge ought not to have received a constitution which was not filed with an Affidavit and which was not part of the record and which stated that it was prepared by the alleged Managing Committee on 14.9.2012. He committed a serious error in proceeding to decide the entire matter on the basis of such constitution. The Appellant admitted that he had consented to Revision being disposed of by directing an election in terms of the constitution, that is the original constitution. As the entire order is based on the said constitution which is admittedly not the constitution of the Society, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court cannot be sustained. 16. There is no dispute that both sides had agreed before the High Court that an election should be held. Necessarily the election should be as per the constitution of the Society. We therefore consider that the appropriate course would be to direct the Registrar of Societies to identify the constitution of the Society and on the basis of such constitution, hold elections. In view of the foregoing we dispose of these appeals with the following directions. (i) The order of the High Court is set aside. (ii) The Registrar of Firms and Societies in Punjab is directed to identify and authenticate the constitution of the College council, Nakodar. (iii) The Registrar of Firms and Societies shall thereafter take necessary steps to hold elections in accordance with such constitution within six months (iv) Till such elections are held, the Committee constitution by the trial Court consisting of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar, principal of Guru Nanak National College for Men and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nakodar and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shahkot, as ex officio members shall be in charge of the day-to-day management and affairs of the Society and the Colleges. (v) We hereby make it clear that nothing stated in this order shall be treated as casting any aspersions about the functioning of the First Respondent when be was acting as the “President”,. (v) We hereby make it clear that nothing stated in this order shall be treated as casting any aspersions about the functioning of the First Respondent when be was acting as the “President”,. These appeals have been decided only with reference to the dispute relating to the constitution. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to the Registrar of Firms and Societies, State of Punjab, Sector 17, Chandigarh, so as to enable him to implement the above directions.” 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal & Another v. West Bengal Registration Copywriters’ Association & Another, 2009 (14) SCC 132 , was pleased to lay down, that the High Court cannot go beyond what was pleaded in the Writ Petition, though the High Court can mould relief, yet it cannot grant relief, for which there are no supporting averments in the Writ Petition, nor the Petitioner can take a stand in the High Court different from the stand taken before the Administrative Tribunal. 26. In this case, the Petitioner, therefore, could not be permitted to raise the pleas, which were not taken in the Departmental proceedings. 27. Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Greater Mohali Area Development Authority & others v. Manju Jain And others, 2010 (9) SCC 157 , was pleased to lay down as under: “Respondent-1 raised the plea of non-receipt of the letter of allotment first time before the High Court. It is settled legal proposition that pure question of law can be raised at any time of the proceedings but a question of fact which requires investigation and inquiry, and for which no factual foundation has been laid by a party before the Court or Tribunal below, cannot be allowed to be agitated in the Writ Petition. If the Writ Court for some compelling circumstances desires to entertain a new factual plea the Court must give due opportunity to the opposite party to controvert the same and adduce the evidence to substantiate its pleadings. As the new plea on fact has been raised first time before the High Court it could not have been entertained, particularly in the manner the High Court dealt with it as on opportunity of controverting the same had been given to Appellants. As the new plea on fact has been raised first time before the High Court it could not have been entertained, particularly in the manner the High Court dealt with it as on opportunity of controverting the same had been given to Appellants. The High Court, instead of examining the case in the correct perspective, proceeded in haste, which itself amounts to arbitrariness”. 28. If the party is permitted to file Additional Affidavit or Additional Typed Set of Papers, without moving Appropriate Application, by making out a case, then the very object and purpose of pleading would stands defeated. The purpose of pleading is to ensure, that the litigants come to trial with all facts clearly defined, and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during Trial. Therefore, if the facts, which are necessary to seek a particular relief, are not found in the Petition, the opposite party does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. 29. Therefore, the oral request made by the Petitioner, for placing on record the Additional Typed Set of Papers or Additional Affidavit is misconceived, thus not sustainable in law. 30. Consequently, the prayer of the Petitioner for filing Additional Affidavit and Additional Typed Set of Papers is declined. 31. On the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the case is now adjourned to 22.8.2011. 32. Registry is directed to issue a copy of this order to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on 11.8.2011. 26.8.2011 33. This case was partly heard on 26th JULY 2011. The case was adjourned, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, to seek instructions for availing the statutory remedy of Appeal. 34. On the next date of hearing, the case was adjourned to 04.08.2011. On 04.08.2011, the case was again adjourned to 09.08.2011. 35. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the adjourned date of hearing, wanted to place on record Additional Affidavit, and Additional Typed Set of Papers, without amending the writ petition. 36. The request was declined, and the case was adjourned to 22nd AUGUST 2011, as the petitioner wanted to file an Appeal, against the order. 37. On 22.08.2011, again adjournment was sought, on the ground, that Writ Appeal was filed, which was yet to be numbered. 38. 36. The request was declined, and the case was adjourned to 22nd AUGUST 2011, as the petitioner wanted to file an Appeal, against the order. 37. On 22.08.2011, again adjournment was sought, on the ground, that Writ Appeal was filed, which was yet to be numbered. 38. Today, when the case came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated, that the Writ Appeal was admitted, but no prayer for stay was made. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked, to argue the matter. 39. The learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of arguing the case, prayed for adjournment. 40. The prayer was declined, as this case was partly heard, and had been adjourned on number of occasions. In spite of refusal to adjournment, the learned counsel for the petitioner refused, to assist the Court on merits. 41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of SMT. POONAM ..VS.. SUMIT TANWAR (A.I.R. 2010 S.C. 1384) has been pleased to lay down as under:- 14. In T.C. Mathai and Another ..Vs.. District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1385 = 1999 A.I.R. SCW 1062), this Court observed: “The work in a court of law is a serious and responsible function. The primary duty of a ..... court is to administer .....justice. Any lax or wayward approach, if adopted towards the issues involved in the case, can cause serious consequences for the parties concerned. … In the adversary system which is now being followed in India, both in civil and criminal litigation, it is very necessary that the court gets proper assistance from both sides. .... Efficacious discharge of judicial process very often depends upon the valuable services rendered by the legal profession.” 16. Thus, in view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that, in case the counsel for the party is not able to render any assistance, the court may decline to entertain the petition. 17. There is another aspect of the matter. In case the petitioner's counsel is not able to raise a factual or legal issue, though such a point may have a good merit, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not “have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted” in this behalf. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. (Vide New Delhi Municipal Committee ..Vs.. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. (Vide New Delhi Municipal Committee ..Vs.. State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1997 SC 2847 = 1997 A.I.R. SCW 2851))." 42. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has refused to render assistance, this writ petition is dismissed.