IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.1122 of 2009 RAM PRASAD SINGH son of late Jang Bahadur Singh, resident of village Sulemanpur, P.S. Kako,District Jehanabad, presently posted as Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Danapur Cantt., Patna. … … Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of India, New Delhi 2. The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Ministry of Human Resources department, Government of India, New Delhi 3. The Joint Commissioner(Admn.), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Headquarters, 18 Institutional Area,S.J.S. Marg, New Delhi, 110016 4. Mr. S. Selvaraj,Assistant Commissioner-cum- conducting Officer of the Departmental Inquiry, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Lohiya Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna 5. Mr.Somit Srivastava, Education Officer-cum- Presenting Officer of the Departmental Inquiry, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Lohiya Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna 6. The Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18 Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Sigh Marg, New Delhi 7. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna … … … Opp. Parties For the petitioner: Mr. Jagnnath Singh ----------- 2. 9.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order of the Division Bench dated 16.3.2009, whereby the writ petition was dismissed after considering all the submissions advanced on behalf of the 2 petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the said order needs to be modified so that the writ petition may be considered afresh in respect of another application before the Administrative Tribunal relating to prayer for quashing the entire disciplinary proceeding which was also rejected by the same order which was impugned in the writ petition. The order of the Division Bench shows that no arguments were advanced to challenge the decision of the Tribunal rejecting the petitioner’s prayer for quashing the entire disciplinary proceeding. In fact, the Division Bench after deciding the matter raised before it has observed in the following terms: “ we gather an impression that the petitioner intends prolonging the disciplinary proceedings.” In the facts of the case, we find no good reason to rehear the writ petition afresh by way of modifying the final order so as to hear the matter on entirely different submissions which were not raised earlier. 3 This M.J.C. is dismissed. It goes without saying that if the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding is against the petitioner, he will have the liberty to raise the illegality at appropriate stage. Kanth ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)