IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23030 of 2008 Between: Pathan Rahman Khan, S/o. Usman Khan R/o. H.No.44-55A, Roza Street, Kurnool - 518 001 (A.P.). ..... PETITIONER AND State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Koti, Hyderabad, A.P. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the letter No.VIG/826, dated 31.08.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and un-constitutional and direct the Respondent to set aside the penalty with payment of back wages followed by pension arrears etc. and to punish the errant authorities under the Rule No.48. Counsel for the Petitioner:PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.V.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23030 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Pathan Rahman Khan assailing the action of the respondent in removing him from service on 14.11.1983. The petitioner joined in the respondent Bank on 02.01.1965 as a Clerk and subsequently he got promotion as Scale-I Officer. An enquiry came to be constituted against him on the ground that he demanded illegal gratification to furnish the copies of the loan applications. After due enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of removal. As departmental appeal proved to be futile, he filed the writ petition and it ended in dismissal and he unsuccessfully challenged the order passed in the writ petition by filing writ appeal. The petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that he was not furnished with copies of loan applications and thereby entire proceedings initiated against him are vitiated. Rule nisi came to be issued on 15.12.2008. Heard party-in-person and Smt. V.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. The party-in-person contends that he has not been furnished with the copies of loan applications and thereby entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are vitiated. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner challenged the order of removal from service by filing a writ petition and it ended in dismissal and he unsuccessfully challenged the same by filing writ appeal and therefore at this distance of time, he cannot be permitted to contend that the departmental proceedings are vitiated for non-furnishing of certain documents. Learned counsel referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed in Rahman Khan.P vs. A.G.M., Region-VI, SBI[1]. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as hereunder:- “The appellant, who appears in person, placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, v. B. Karunakar AIR 1994 SC 1074 : 1993 (4) SCC 727 : 1994-I-LLJ-162 submitted that it was obligatory on the part of the employer to supply a copy of the report to the employee, and that the non-supply thereof vitiated the entire disciplinary proceedings. But the question as to whether in the Service Rules governing the appellant, any condition as regards obligation of the employer to supply a copy of the enquiry report, existed or not having regard to the principles of res judicata, the same cannot be reopened now, particularly when the appellant herein in the writ petition has only sought a direction to the respondents to pay him the amount of gratuity. It is well known that the general principles of res judicata apply in a writ proceedings also. The appellant has approached this Court on several occasions by filing writ petitions and in one of the cases also approached the Supreme Court, which upheld the order impugned therein. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be permitted to reagitate the question inasmuch as the principles of constructive res judicata squarely apply in this case even if it is assumed that the aforementioned question had not been raised in earlier writ proceedings. It is also well settled that a party cannot be permitted to raise a question collaterally in a proceedings where the same cannot be raised directly. Having regard to the past history, we would not have interfered with the order of the learned Single Judge imposing costs, but keeping in view the fact that the appellant has not been advised correctly on the legal side, we feel it appropriate to delete that portion of the order whereby costs have been awarded. Hence, the part of the order of the learned Single Judge, which imposed costs, stands set aside.” The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is solely misconceived. Had he not been furnished the copies of relevant documents, he should have agitated the same in the earlier round of litigation. The petitioner having failed in the earlier writ petition resorted to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. On the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 29.01.2009 Note: Furnish CC in one week B/o v v [1] 2001 (2) Labour Law Journal, 928