Skip to content


Pratap Kishore Dash Vs. High Court of Orissa Rep. by Its Registrar (Admn.) and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Service

Court

Orissa High Court

Decided On

Judge

Reported in

109(2010)CLT6

Appellant

Pratap Kishore Dash

Respondent

High Court of Orissa Rep. by Its Registrar (Admn.) and ors.

Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Excerpt:


.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........of the departmental proceeding.3. from the counter affidavit, filed by opposite party no. 1, it reveals that pursuant to the order of this court dated 5.11.2003 passed in ojc no. 15093 of 1996, the petitioner was reinstated in service. subsequently, basing upon his ccrs & his over-all performance, the petitioner was made to retire from government service compulsorily with effect from 07.03.2006 under rule 71 (a) of the orissa service code. since the subject matter of the present writ petition was directly & substantially in issue in the earlier writ petition filed by the present petitioner, i.e. o.j.c. no. 15093 of 1996, which was heard & disposed of by this court by its order dated 5.11.2003, as quoted above, this writ petition is not maintainable being barred by the principles of res judicata.4. in view of the above, this writ petition is not maintainable & the same is accordingly dismissed.indrajit mahanty, j.5. i agree.

Judgment:


S.C. Parija, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying inter alia for quashing of the departmental proceeding initiated against him vide D.P. No. 4 of 1993 & the charges framed thereunder & also the report of the Enquiring Officer submitted in the said departmental proceeding.

2. The Petitioner joined the Orissa Judicial Service, Class-II, in the year 1976. In the year 1993, while the Petitioner was working as S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide D.P. No. 4 of 1993 for alleged act of insubordination, indiscipline & gross misconduct. During pendency of the departmental proceeding, the Petitioner was placed under suspension. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding against him vide D.P. No. 4 of 1993 & placing him under suspension, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court being OJC No. 15093 of 1996, praying for quashing of the said D.P. No. 4 of 1993 & the order of suspension. This Court by Order Dated 5.11.2003 disposed of OJC No. 15093 of 1996 with the following orders:

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not interfere with the initiation of the Departmental Proceeding against the Petitioner, but we direct that the Petitioner be forthwith reinstated in service. The Departmental Proceeding be finalized by the High Court as early as possible. The period of suspension of the Petitioner will be treated & the salary & . allowances determined in accordance with the rules by the High Court depending upon the outcome of the Departmental Proceeding.

3. From the counter affidavit, filed by Opposite Party No. 1, it reveals that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 5.11.2003 passed in OJC No. 15093 of 1996, the Petitioner was reinstated in service. Subsequently, basing upon his CCRs & his over-all performance, the Petitioner was made to retire from Government Service compulsorily with effect from 07.03.2006 under Rule 71 (a) of the Orissa Service Code. Since the subject matter of the present Writ Petition was directly & substantially in issue in the earlier Writ Petition filed by the present Petitioner, i.e. O.J.C. No. 15093 of 1996, which was heard & disposed of by this Court by its Order Dated 5.11.2003, as quoted above, this Writ Petition is not maintainable being barred by the principles of res judicata.

4. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is not maintainable & the same is accordingly dismissed.

Indrajit Mahanty, J.

5. I agree.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //