IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 27 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision : March 18, 2011 Ex-Constable Harpinder Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent filed by the unsuccessful appellant is directed against the judgment dated 25.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the petitioner had earlier filed C.W.P. No. 15508 of 1998 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.9.1998. In the aforesaid writ also, the appellant had challenged order dated 24.6.1998 (P-2) passed by the respondents dismissing him from service by dispensing with enquiry by invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution. 2. The learned Single Judge has held that merely because the appellant had approached the authority with a mercy petition after LPA No. 27 of 2011(O&M) -2- withdrawal of the earlier writ petition and the fact that his co-accused, namely, Tarsem Lal has succeeded in securing relief from Hon'ble the Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 1489 of 2004 decided on 25.1.2006 (P-5), would not arm the appellant with a new cause of action. 3. We have heard Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and are unable to find any merit in this appeal. We are of the view that the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') would apply because as per the Rule 32 of the Writ Jurisdiction (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1976 (for brevity 'the Writ Rules'), it has been provided that in the matters which have not been specifically dealt with by the Writ Rules, the provisions of the Code so far as they can be made applicable, would apply to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code would apply, which incorporates the policy of law that there should be finality to the adjudication and for one cause of action the administration of justice should not be vexed twice. The matter came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Teja Singh v. The Union Territory of Chandigarh 1982 PLR 160. In proposition No. 9 in para 27, the following propositions have been laid down:- “That provisions of Order 23, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to the writ proceedings and LPA No. 27 of 2011(O&M) -3- that a petition which has simply been got dismissed as withdrawn would be a bar to the filing of a second petition on the same facts and in respect of the same cause of action.” 4. These are additional reasons to sustain the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. We are unable to persuade ourselves to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and hold that the appeal is wholly without merit and does not warrant admission. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 5. In view of the fact that the appeal has been dismissed on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 18, 2011 JUDGE ajay-I