ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and where under the following prayers have been made:- “(i) For quashing the order dated 03.10.2013 (Annexure-12) passed by Learned Divisional Commissioner, S.P. Division at Dumka, whereby and where under R.M.A. No.67/09-10 filed by petitioner against the order dated 29.4.09 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in P.D. Case No.78/03-05 has been dismissed. (ii) For quashing the order dated 29.04.2009 (Annexure-7) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in P.D. Case No.67/09-10 whereby and where under by the aforesaid order the petitioner has been dismissed from the post of Village Pradhan confirming the order passed by Learned Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka in Pradhani Dismissal Case No.78/2004-05. (iii) For quashing of the order dated 06.12.2007 (Annexure-6) passed by Learned Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka in Pradhani Dismissal Case No.78/2004-05, whereby and where under Learned Sub Divisiona Officer, Dumka has recommended for dismissal of petitioner from the post of Village Pradhan in view of proposal submitted by the Circle Officer, Jama, District-Dumka.” 2. The petitioner who had been appointed as village headman under the provision of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act by virtue of the procedure laid down therein under Schedule-V sometime in the year 1993 and thereafter he was continuing as headman of the village but on an enquiry it was found that he is involved in irregularity of cultivating the land wherein a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. has been initiated. Due enquiry was conducted by the Circle Officer and the said report was referred before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who after conducting a thorough enquiry has recommended for dismissal of the petitioner as headman and forwarded it before the Deputy Commissioner, who after agreeing with the said recommendation has dismissed the headman against which the petitioner has filed revision before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Dumka. The said revision application was disposed of vide order dated 07.01.2012 passed in R.M.A. No.67/09-10 against which the petitioner has preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No.4539 of 2012 and this Court after considering the submission/ground agitated by the petitioner has quashed the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner under the revisional jurisdiction and remitted it before the Commissioner for fresh hearing, consideration and disposal of the said appeal in accordance with law. In pursuance thereto, Commissioner has passed a fresh order on 03.10.2013 confirming the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner by disallowing the writ petition which is impugned in this writ petition. 3. The petitioner has agitated the ground in assailing the aforesaid order that there is no proper consideration of the response submitted by the petitioner and the irregularity as has been levelled against the petitioner regarding cultivating the agricultural field of a land which is being claimed by the respondent No.5 as his own land. 4. The said aspect of the matter has not properly been appreciated since neither in the enquiry report nor by the Deputy Commissioner there is consideration about the imposition of a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. and therefore on the vague enquiry report, the order of dismissal has been passed and when it has been agitated before the revisional authority, the same has not been considered and again at the time of deciding the issue afresh, on the basis of the said reasoning, the same has been rejected. 5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ground of dismissal has been referred under Schedule-V but none of the ground is applicable warranting dismissal of the petitioner from village headman, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable, accordingly, is fit to be quashed. 6. Mr. 5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ground of dismissal has been referred under Schedule-V but none of the ground is applicable warranting dismissal of the petitioner from village headman, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable, accordingly, is fit to be quashed. 6. Mr. Navin Kumar, learned GP-IV representing the State of Jharkhand has submitted that the present writ petition is the second round of litigation and in the first writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4539 of 2012, the petitioner has agitated the ground that the Commissioner in exercise of revisional power has passed a cryptic order and this Court after considering and appreciating the aforesaid ground has quashed the order passed by the revisional authority and remitted the matter before the Commissioner for passing a fresh order and thereafter, the Commissioner after taking into consideration the report submitted by the Circle Officer and intent and spirit for the purpose of appointment of village headman as provided under the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act has found to have committed irregularity and when this fact has been corroborated in course of an enquiry, the Circle Officer has sent the said enquiry report before the Sub-Divisional Officer and after accepting the said report and going across the entire aspect of the matter, had recommended for dismissal to take final decision by the Deputy Commissioner who is the competent authority under the statute and who basing upon the fact finding has taken the decision for dismissal. 7. The Commissioner after accepting the said aspect of the matter has found no point of disagreeing and therefore has confirmed the order passed by the appellate authority and hence, there is no reason to interfere with the said order since the decision is based upon the fact finding and if this Court will interfere, it will amount to exercising the appellate jurisdiction. 8. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions, this Court before delving into the merit of the issue deems it fit and proper to refer the provision of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act whereby and where under a provision has been made under Section 5 of the S.P.T. Act for appointment of village headman and the appointment is to be made on an application of a raiyat or of landlord of any khas village and with the consent of at least two thirds of the jamabandi raiyats of the village ascertained in the manner prescribed, the Deputy Commissioner may declare that a headman shall be appointed for the village and shall then proceed to make the appointment in the prescribed manner. The reference also needs to be made about the provision of Rule 4 of Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary) Rules, 1950 which contains the provision regarding the manner in which the village headman shall discharge his duties, which reads hereunder as:- “4. Rules regarding the manner in which village headman shall discharge his duties.––(1) In discharge of the duties of his office the village headman shall be governed by the patta granted to him and the kabuliyat executed by him as also by the record-of-rights for the village. The patta and the kabuliyat shall be in the form set out in Schedule III. (2) It shall be his duty to act as true custodian of the common rights of the village community and he shall with reasonable promptness report infringement of any such rights to the Deputy Commissioner. (3) The village headman shall not take part in any subversive activites. (4) The headman shall comply with the directions given to him by the Sub-divisional Officer of any officer authorised by the Deputy Commissioner in this behalf. (5) Where a Gram Panchayat has been established under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1948, the headman shall give his full co-operation towards successful working of the Panchayat. (6) In case of contravention of any of these sub-rules, the Deputy Commissioner may, in his direction, dismiss the headman or impose a fine on him.” 9. The Schedule-V of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act while appointing the headman the consideration is to be made about certain things while for dismissal the said power rests with the Deputy Commissioner subject to an appeal to the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas. The Schedule-V of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act while appointing the headman the consideration is to be made about certain things while for dismissal the said power rests with the Deputy Commissioner subject to an appeal to the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas. Headman are liable to be dismissed for the reason stipulated therein which reads hereunder as:- “Dismissal of Headman. The power of dismissal rests with the Deputy Commissioner subject to an appeal to the Commissioner, Santal Parganas. Headman are liable to be dismissed for the following reasons, and the heir of headman dismissed for misconduct shall have no claim to the office:–– (1) On account of personal unfitness through excessive age; defective intellect or physical infirmity, provided that in cases of this kind, a headman during his lifetime may with the approval of the Deputy Commissioner, appoint his heir to act for him. Any misconduct on the part of heir will render him liable to lose his claim to succession on the death or resignation of the headman for whom he acts. (2) On account of any proved fraud, violence, contempt of Court or other grave misconduct or of such oppressive or inconsiderate treatment of the raiyats or gross neglect of their interest as may be considered to unfit him for the post. (3) For destroying, damaging of failing to guard the common property and recorded rights of the village, or for collecting from raiyats in excess of the settlement of the settlement rates. (4) For failure without due cause to pay his village rents punctually or for alienating or attempting to alienate, without permission his jot which is security for the rent. (5) The interest of a headman manjhi or mustajir is not transferable by sale or otherwise. But in case where such interest has been sold through the Courts and where the right of the purchaser has never since been questioned, recognition should not be refused to the purchaser merely on the ground that the sale took place subsequent to the prohibition by Government of such sale.” It is evident from the aforesaid provision that if any of the ground referred and quoted hereinabove, the village headman can be dismissed from service by an order passed in this regard by the Deputy Commissioner of the District falling within the jurisdiction of the Santhal Parganas area. 10. 10. The petitioner has been appointed as village headman by following the due procedure sometime in the year 1993 but he has been found to have committed irregularity by entering into the land which claims to be owned by the respondent No.5 wherein a proceeding has been initiated by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. The said fact having came to the notice of the authority, an enquiry has been directed to be conducted and the Circle Officer in course of the enquiry has found that the petitioner even though is village headman, has entered into the land where the restrainment order passed by the competent authority under the provision of Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was there, has cultivated the agricultural land and therefore, the said report was referred before the Sub-Divisional Officer for taking necessary action. In pursuance thereto, the Circle Officer, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, has made a recommendation for dismissal by the competent authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District, after accepting the said enquiry report along with the recommendation, has dismissed the petitioner from village headman against which the petitioner has preferred a revision application which was disposed of vide order dated 07.01.2012. The same was assailed by the petitioner by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4539 of 2012 wherein the specific ground has been agitated regarding the cryptic finding and non-consideration of the point agitated by the petitioner before the revisional authority and this Court, after considering the aforesaid factual aspect, has quashed the order passed by the revisional authority and remitted the matter before him to take a fresh decision, in pursuance thereto, a fresh decision has been taken on 03.10.2013 which is under challenge in this writ petition. 11. It is settled position of law that High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to enter into the factual dispute save and except the decision can be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is any perversity in the finding and taking into consideration the above position of law, the order passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Praganas Division under its revisional jurisdiction, has been appreciated by this Court. 12. 12. It is evident from the perusal of the impugned order that the revisional authority has considered the fact about the commission of irregularity by the petitioner, who, even though has been appointed as village headman has entered into the land which is being claimed to be owned by respondent No.5 upon which a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. has been initiated. 13. The question herein is that when the petitioner has been appointed as Village-Headman he cannot be allowed to take law in his hand even accepting as has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid land belongs to the petitioner but even in that situation the petitioner would have approached before the Court of law for adjudicating the dispute if anybody is disputing his title over the portion of land and particularly when a restrainment order has been passed by the competent authority under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. but the petitioner has failed in realizing this aspect of the matter and has behaved like a normal citizen, therefore, the said situation warranted the authority to look into the decision as to whether by appointing him as Village-Headman, the right decision has been taken or not. 14. The detailed enquiry has been conducted by the Circle Officer, in course thereof, it has been found conclusively that the petitioner has entered into the land which has been claimed to be owned by the respondent No.5 wherein a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. has been initiated. The said enquiry report has been referred by the Cirlce Officer before before the Sub Divisional Officer who has found the allegation to be true, thereafter, due recommendation has been made upon which the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the village headman from service. The said enquiry report has been referred by the Cirlce Officer before before the Sub Divisional Officer who has found the allegation to be true, thereafter, due recommendation has been made upon which the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the village headman from service. The contention as has been raised by the petitioner that none of the ground for dismissal of the petitioner as headman as stipulated under Schedule-V is available, therefore, the finding given by the revisional authority or the competent authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner is perverse but this Court after going across the reason for dismissal of headman as stipulated under Schedule-V of the Santhal Parganas Act has found that one of the reasons is under serial No.2 which provides that if on account of any proved fraud, violence, contempt of Court or other grave misconduct or of such oppressive or inconsiderate treatment of the raiyats or gross neglect of their interest as may be considered to unfit him for the post, and therefore, what has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even accepting that there is violation of the restrainment order imposed under the provision of Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. none of the condition stipulated under Schedule-V warranting the petitioner from the punishment of dismissal is found to be incorrect. 15. The petitioner has also tried to impress upon the Court that the proper opportunity of hearing has not been given but since it is the second round of litigation as is evident from the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C). No.4539 of 2012 wherein the petitioner has not agitated the issue about depriving him from proper opportunity of hearing rather the only ground has been raised that the Commissioner has passed a cryptic order on 07.01.2012 and mechanically dismissed the appeal, therefore, this Court has considered that aspect of the matter and quashed the order. Since it is the second round of litigation, therefore, he cannot be allowed to improve his case by raising the point which he has not raised in the earlier round of litigation, otherwise it will hit the principle of constructive res judicata since the basic principle i.e. if ground is available and if not raised in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner will be precluded from raising the issue in the second round of litigation. 16. 16. Since the order passed by the Commissioner is based upon the cogent evidence, on fact finding enquiry conducted by the Circle Officer that has been appreciated by the Sub Divisional Officer and accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, the competent authority, as such, there is concurrent conclusive finding against the petitioner and hence the interference with the concurrent finding by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will amount to disturbing the fact finding in the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court and that would not be proper, therefore, this Court refrains itself in interfering with the fact finding as has been recorded by the revisional authority, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the same. 17. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 18. However, it is open for the petitioner that if he so wishes, may agitate the grievance before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, if permissible.