In person v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director

Mr. I.P. Mehra, The Enquiry Officer, C/o Bank of India, For the petitioner : Mr. Baldeo Prasad Gupta, In person. For the respondents : None. ----------- 05/

27.01.2009 This case has been filed by the petitioner on 21.10.2008 for review of order dated 28.07.1995 (Annexure-1/A) by which a Bench of this court dismissed on merits C.W.J.C. No.7062 of 1994, filed by the petitioner.

The reason for such a long delay of about thirteen years have been given and in the meantime the petitioner had filed L.P.A. No. 1563 of 1995 which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this court on 22.09.1995 on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. Thereafter the petitioner moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for redressal of his grievance but the Hon’ble Apex 2 Court also dismissed his S.L.P. Further reason for delay has been mentioned that he had filed M.J.C. No. 1814 of 2000 which was dismissed on 28.11.2007 (Annexure-1/B).

It also transpires that after loosing upto the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned above, the petitioner again filed C.W.J.C. No. 132 of 1999 in which I.A. No. 2287 of 1999 was also filed, but both of them were disposed of on 23.02.1999 with a direction that respondent no.2 must dispose of the appeal after hearing the petitioner within two months. Thereafter the petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 1084 of 1999 for modification of order dated 23.02.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 132 of 1999, which was also disposed of on

03.05.1999, whereafter a contempt petition bearing M.J.C. No. 1395 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner alleging violation of order dated 23.02.1999, but the said petition was dismissed on

12.03.1999 against which L.P.A. No. 1066 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this court holding that the said L.P.A. was not maintainable. It further transpires that another case bearing Civil Review No. 29 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner against order dated 23.02.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 132 of 1999 which was disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner on

13.10.1998.

It is also found that another writ case bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4087 of 2001 was filed by the petitioner with respect to the same matter, which was dismissed by this court with an observation 3 that the court did not appreciate the filing of successive writ petitions by the petitioner. Against the said order L.P.A. No. 455 of 2001 was filed by the petitioner, which was also dismissed taking serious note of the conduct of the petitioner in agitating the same matter again and again which had been finally concluded by this court and hence it amounted to gross abuse of the process of the court.

It transpires that thereafter the petitioner filed a contempt petition bearing M.J.C. No. 804 of 2001, which was dismissed by this court on 09.01.2004 and in the meantime the petitioner also filed the above mentioned contempt petition bearing M.J.C. No. 1814 of 2000 but the said petition was dismissed on 28.11.2007 holding that the said petition was a repetition of the relief sought earlier by the petitioner and hence there was no justification to entertain such petition. However, an observation was made by that court that repeated filing of the cases before this court for the same relief was not appreciated.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the delay in the filing of the instant review petition cannot be held to be properly explained, specially in view of the fact that against the order sought to be reviewed the petitioner had gone before the Division Bench of this court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court and lost before both the authorities more than a decade ago.

So far the merit of the case is concerned, C.W.J.C. No. 7062 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner against the original as well 4 as the appellate orders of the authorities dismissing the petitioner from his service after departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with regard to defalcation of a huge amount while he was working as staff officer of the Bank of India at Dehri-on-Sone Branch. This court while deciding the matter on 28.07.1995 (order under review) found that admittedly the points raised before this court were never raised either before the original authority or even before the appellate authority who decided the said matter. The learned Hon’ble court found that it was a well settled principle of law that if a point is not raised in the statutory appeal before the appellate authority it cannot be entertained in the writ jurisdiction. It was also found that on facts two authorities have examined the charges against the petitioner with reference to evidence on record and hence there was no merit at all in the writ petition and the same was dismissed. The said order of this court was affirmed by a Division Bench of this court as well as by the Hon’ble Apex Court as has been mentioned above.

The petitioner submits that he is seeking the same relief as he had sought in the writ petition. He further submits that the case of the petitioner was proved by official records but the impugned orders were passed due to non-production of official records by the respondents which could have proved that no defalcation at all was committed by the petitioner and hence the entire episode was due to laches on the part of the respondents authorities, whereas there was no illegality, offence or misconduct committed by the petitioner. 5 However, the petitioner has failed to substantiate the said claim as neither any such record has been pointed out, nor it is shown as to what step he has taken in that regard before the authorities concerned and hence the entire claim is absolutely vague and frivolous.