IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12658 of 2010 1. NARESH PRASAD SINGH S/O SRI JALDHAR SINGH R/O VILL.- NEYA, P.O.- SISMA, P.S./DISTT.- NAWADAH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD., PATNA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BIHAR STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD., PATNA 4. THE FINANCE CONTROLLER BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD., PATNA 5. THE SENIOR REGIONAL OFFICER BIHAR STATE COOP. MARKETING UNION LTD., BHAGALPUR 6. THE REGIONAL OFFICER BIHAR STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD., NAWADAH ----------- 03. 24.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union(hereinafter referred to as the BISCOMAUN). 2. Petitioner earlier served as sales man at Ghogha sales centre of BISCOMAUN. He was dismissed from the service of the BISCOMAUN under order dated 14.9.2006, Annexure-5 after conclusion of departmental proceeding initiated against him with direction to recover a sum of Rs.9,55,852=64/- from him by instituting certificate proceeding. Petitioner assailed the order dated 14.9.2006, Annexure-5 by filing C.W.J.C. No.2528 of 2007 which was heard along with C.W.J.C.No.12645 of 2006 and other analogous matters and was dismissed under orders dated 1.10.2008 observing as follows :- “It is not a case where a permanent employee is sought to be removed, on ground of any misconduct or indiscipline. It is a case where a large work force has lost its relevance in the back ground that the object and purpose for which the appointment of these petitioners was made in haste has lost its meaning down the - 2 - line. If the view of the courts expressed in some of the decisions noticed above is taken into consideration, then this Court has difficulty in holding that the petitioners cannot be terminated from their services without holding a departmental enquiry or before they reach the age of superannuation. If the State or its functionaries can take decisions for termination of the services of permanent employees in the given circumstances then it cannot be gain said that a co-operative body does not have this right”. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the earlier writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed on the premise that he was never subjected to any departmental proceeding under order dated 1.10.2008 on account of financial crunch and lack of utility this petition should be entertained as the Hon’ble Judge while passing order dated 1.10.2008 was unaware of the fact that petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings. 4. I regret not to entertain the writ petition. If the case of the petitioner was not considered by the Hon’ble judge in the earlier writ petition, then it was for the petitioner to invite the attention of his lordships by filing modification petition or to challenge his lordships’ order by filing Letters Patent Appeal but not to maintain another writ application impugning the same impugned order, which was impugned in the earlier writ case. In the circumstances, I dismiss the present writ application. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)