IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11925 of 2009 BRAJ BIHARI SINGH s/o Jagdish Prasad Singh, resident of village and Post- Asani, P.S. Udwantnagar, District- Bhojpur Versus 1. BIHAR STATE COOPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT B ANK SAMITTEE,Patna through Managing Director. 2. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar,Patna. 3. Managing Director, Bihar State Cooperative Land Development Bank Samittee,Patna. ----------- For the Petitioner:Mr.Ashok Kumar Choudhary For respsondents no.1 and 2 : Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary --- 2 14.9.09 Petitioner was an employee of Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank. Pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding against him , he was dismissed. Instead of preferring the statutory appeal , that was available to him, he chose to file a writ petition challenging the said order. The writ petition was heard at length and was dismissed. The order of disciplinary authority was not interfered with .Petitioner then preferred L.P.A., Special Leave to Appeal in Apex Court and a review petition before the Apex Court without success. He then filed statutory appeal, which was dismissed. He challenged that in the second writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of directing the Appellate Court to condone the delay, entertain the appeal and decide the same on merit. The Bank being aggrieved by this order of the Court, filed L.P.A. L.P.A. Bench clarified the order of learned Single Judge directing the appellate Court to decide the appeal on merit including the question of jurisdiction. Petitioner’s appeal was taken up and was dismissed virtually on single ground of constructive res- judicata . Petitioner has challenged the said decision in the said Service Appeal. In my view, the - 2 - writ petition is not maintainable. Petitioner instead of filing an appeal, took chance by filing writ petition arguing on merit. The order of disciplinary authority was not interfered with and the writ petition was dismissed by a well considered order. Thus, the order of disciplinary authority merged with that of Court at the first instance. This order was not interfered with even by the Apex Court. Now, if the appellate authorities were to entertain the appeal and if it were to allow the appeal, the effect would be the order of the disciplinary authority, as affirmed by this Court, would now be held by the appellate authority to be bad. That can never be permitted . It would give rise conflicting orders and would never be permitted. Furhter in view of Explanation IV to Section 11 of the C.P.C., the principle and the public policy of res judicata would directly come into play. Petitioner had chosen to file a writ petition rather than preferring an appeal. He took a chance. Now permitting the petitioner to challenge the order even on any other ground would give rise to conflict of jurisdiction and conflict of order, neither of which can be permitted. The writ petition is thus dismissed. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)