*^/%Sf^S :1 •^' ^ V.K. SHPJVASTAVA. J. i^syw Union ot' India, Through the Secreta"/, MinEstry of Communications, Governrnent of India, Department of Posts, "Dak Bhawan" Pariiament Street, New Deihi'. The Senior Suoerintendent of Post 2. Durg Divisten, Bhi'tei (C.G.) ihn R.R. Khare, 5on ofShivte! Khare, Agea aoout &2 years, Kesident ot Kusimkasa, Near DaSii Rajhara, District Durg (C.G.) Centrai AdmJnistrative Tribunal "hrough The Registrar, ril< O >J?3h?5?hiii ^s^f^l Present: Shri S.K. Beriwaf, iearnea' counsei for the petitioners. The foiiowing orai order of the Court was passed by i.R. Nayak, CJ. ve may say so, the Government of India and the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, the petitioners herein, are not wei! advised in preferring this writ petition under Articles 228 & 227 of the Constitution of India to question the correctness of Order ofthe Central Adrninistrative Tribuna!, Jabaipur Bench, Jabaipur dated 23 June 1999 as we!i as ths Order datea' 30'" August 2006 made in O.A. No,127 of 1992 and Misc. Appsai No.725 of 2006 fited in O.A. No.127 of 1992. it is quite startjin< I' i^sas evs^^eistsiw^'!l!^slsii^isiee8sss^ <3 'v^"\ y- that the petitioners advised and assisted by batten/ of standing counsei could fiie such frivolous writ petition. We say this because of more than one reason. The TribunaS by its order dated 23 June 1399 passed in O.A. No.127 of 1992 aiiowed the appiicatlon of the first respondent herein and quashed the impugned ordsr dated 23.11.1987 and 18.04.1990, and directed the petitioners herein to proceed v/ith further proceedings envisaged under the provisions ofCCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 from the stage of receipt of ths Enquiry Officer's report. In other vvords, the Tribunai having found that the Disciptinary Authorify imposeo' penalty of removal as a discipiinary measure on the aiieged misconduct attributed to the first respondent without furnishing enquir»'report as required, had aliowed the applicatfon of the first respondant ano passed the above order. Feeiinc aggrieved by the above order , the very petitioners herein had preferred writ petition No.4583 of 1999 before the High Court of Madhya Fradesh and Shat writ petitson, on transfer, was atimiftectiy dismissed by this Court vide order dateu 24.06.2003. If appears that in the certified copy of the order dated 23ra June 1999, the fsrst respondent who was the applicant before the Tribunal was wrongiy described as R.K. Khare instead of correctiy mentioning his name as R.R. Khare. Sn the circumstance, the first respondent moved Misc. Appiication 725 of 2006 before the Tribunai for correction of his nams and that application was ordered by the Tribunai vide its order dated 30 Auaust 2006. (2) This writ petition is iiable to be dismissed in limme by doctrine of resjudicata. The order made by this Court on 24.06.2003 in Vrf.P. No.4583 of 1999 has become finai and it would aKiaasa operate as resjudicata and consequently this writ petition Is not maintainable. Accordingiy, this writ petition isdismissed. Nocosts. SdA GhiefJustice Su'- ;.K.sn'i!ysswva jud9fi 't v