K.P. Dewaagau, - aged about 45 years, son of Shri H.P. Dewaagan, workuig as Cashier Cum. Clerk, Regional Rural Bank Brauch - Bade Bhandar (Now traiisfen'ed to Branch - Lailunga), District RaigaTh (C.G.) , 1. The Raigarh Kslietriya Gramiii tejik, Rpigarh, tlirough - its Chainnaii, Head Ofiice, Station Road, Raigarh (C.G.'I 2. Boai'd of Dii'ectors, turough - Chainnail, tlie Raigarh, Kshetriya Qraiaia Bank, Raigarh (C.G.) ^-'^^^'il^ Sliri A.N. Bhakta, Counsel for tlie petitioner. ./" .. - \ nearcl. The pentioner was workiiig as a Cashier-cuni-Clerk at Haiau-pur Braxich of Kshetriya Gramia Banl!:, Raigarh. For a chai'ge of misappropriation^ a depai'tmental eaquiiy was iiiitiated agamst Gie petitioaer aiid ultimatety, the petitioiier t^ admitted his gTiut m. the euqiiin- aiid accordingly subiuitted a representation to tlie concemed autliority to take a lenient view iii the raatter of awai'duig punisliiuent. T'he disciplinaiy autliority by his order dated 31.5.1999 miposed punisbiaent revertiag tiie petitioner to tiie lowest stage m the tune scale of fhe pay (casbier-cuiu.-clerk). The petitioner chaUeaged tlie said order iii appeal, but fhe appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, fbe petitioner has ffled an earUer Writ Petition No.499/2002 *»ttttto4. 2 W.P. (Si No.6178/2007 before fais Court, ta which, he has raised alitiost a3. posslble poiats. The said petition came up for heaniig on 31st Jaiiusuy 2006 aud ttie Court disposed of the said petition by passiag tl-ie foUowiag order : "4. It is weU settled pfuiciples of law that fhis Court while exercisiag its extraordm.ar;^ jurisdiction iii a petition filed uiider Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India should l^fram itsetf froni m.terfering with fae fmdm.gs of facts. In the present case tfae finduig of facts as to guUt of the petitioaer has been coiicurreiitly fouud by the enquiring aufhori.ly, disciplmaiy autlionty as well as the appeUate aufborit'/. The punisliinent imposed is not disproportionate to f&e laisconduct com-niitted b'v tlie petitioner. As such, it does iiot caU for aay iiiterfereiice wifli fbe fiadm.gs of facts recorded bv the aiithoriti.es below. 5. In view oftlie. facts and circuiastaiices oftlie case when ttie petitioner has adiuitted his g^.ult and has prayed for leniency iii awardiiig fhe punishinent, fhe respondents raay consider fhe reqj.test of fhe petitioner for inodi&catiQn of fhe punishmeat awarded." Leamed coiuisel for the petitioner silbinits Uiat thereafter, w?Iien tlie aiatter was agaia bi-ought to tlie iioti.ee of the conceiTied aufhority, prayuig for lenieacy iii the punishineut, tlie conceraed aufliority took fhe similai" view aiid did not alter tlie piuiishiaent awarded to the petitioner. He subiaits that tlie order (Annexure p/ 1) passed by tlie conceined aiifliority 011 fie application/representation inade ";,' ftie petinoiier caiinot be sustained. I have gone tlil'ougli tlie coatents of flie petition as also tlie docucients filed along with it. A perusal of para 4 of tlie earlier order wo'uld show tliat ftlis Court lias already talcen a view tliat fhe puuishnient imposed was not disproportionate to Uie niiscondiict committed by fhe petitioner and in fhe said circurastaiice, fhe petition was disposed of. However, tlie luatter was left on the discretion ofthe autliorities of the Baiik to consider once agaiii tlie case of tiie petitioner on fhe ground that he Iiiinself has adiiutted his guut. W'.P. (S) No.6178/2007 Shyn; When flie concenied ailtliority, after application of m.md and after exercisiilg Uieii' discretion has aiTived at the conclusion tliat tlie pluiisl'Lment awai-ded by flie Baiilc was just aad proper, fhen there hai'dly remauis aiiy reason for fhis Court to again exercise extraordiaaiy jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of ludia, particiilarly, iii liglit of fhe earlier order passed by fhis Court. Tbe petition has no nieiit aiid tlie same is dismissed at tlie inotion stage itseif'. Sd/- SanilKumarSinUa Judge \.