&u®9 ^ < HIGHCQURT_QF_CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 7446 of2007 PETITIONER : Dr. Rinita Rai, aged-34 years, W/o Dr. Sanjeev Presently working as-Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Disease Investigation Lab, Jashpur, District Jashpurna (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Departmenl Agriculture & Animal Husbandry, Mantralaya, Dl Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Director, Department of Veterinary Servici Chhattisgarh, HQ- Raipur. 3. Deputy Director, Veterinary Services, Jashpumagar (CG) 4. Dr. M.D. Tekchandani, Deputy Director, Veterina Services, Kabeerdham (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri R.K. Kesarwani, Advocate for the petitioaer. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to3. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 4. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 18th day ofFebruary, 2009) I. With tlie consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearmg fmally. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 16.10.2006 (Annexure P/6) whereby it was directed to recover the amount from salary of the t^ petitioner as she has not submitted the utilization certificate for Rs. 1,68,876/- advanced to her for the period from November, 2004 to February, 2006. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the same order which has been considered and decided in W.P.(S) No. 6547/2006, questioning __ the legality and validity of the impugaed order dated 06.10.2006 iu'miiiiiiiniiani'Kft' on the similar grounds. This Court, after hearing all the parties, disposed ofthe petition holding as under: "Petitioner while working as Assistant Veterinary Surgeon at Veterinary Hospital, Bodla, Dist. Kabeerdham was paid Rs. 1,68,876/- by respondent No. 3 - Deputy Director (Veterinar) Kabeerdham, for meeting expenditure under various heads. Thereafter, she was transferred and posted to Jashpur Nagar, but she did not submit utilization certificate for the above amount. Therefore, Deputy Director 0/eterinary) Kabeerdham mitiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner and passed the impugned order. Neither fhe recovery proceedings falls within fhe domain of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, nor for such recovery only the Appomting Authority or Disciplinary Authority is authorized. Therefor&, recovery order passed by Deputy Director (Veterinary), Kabeerdham, does not call for any interference. However, if petitioner submits utilization certificate within a month or details of expenditure made by her in accordance with rules under various heads, Deputy Director (Veterinary) Kabeerdham, may consider those documents to decide the dispute and to proceed to recover the balance, ifany. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, M.W.P. No. 4775/2006 staflds disposed of." 4. No fresh cause of action has arisen thereafter to file this petition. This petition challenges the same impugned order i.e. dated 16.10.2006 on the similar grounds as raised in W.P(S) No. 6547/2006. Thus, the present writ petition is not mamtainabl.e and it amounts to consideration of the order passed by a coordinate Single Judge Bench. 5. Leamed counsel appearing respondent No. 1 to 3 submits that pursuant to the order dated 4.12.20006 passed in W.P.(^) No. 6547/2006, the petitioner has failed to submit requisite utilization certificate. On 3.3.2007, a notice was issued (Annexure RV1) to the petitioner to submit utilization certification with vouchers. The petitioner has not submitted utilization certificate till date. Accordingly, the letter dated 29.12.2007 (Annexure R-l/3) was sent ^Sfr-^®1^'-;; K^»..S- .•• Sahu mentioning that despite opportuni-ties granted to the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to file the utilization certificate. 6. In view ofthe foregoing, it appears that the petitioner has misused the judicial process. In the first round of litigation in W.P.(S) 6547/2006, the petitioner was granted one month time to deposit utilization certificate. Thereafter, even the respondent-authorities have sent the letter on 03.03.2007 and granted opportunity till 29.12.2007. The petitioner, instead of impugning the letter dated 29.12.2007, has impugned the earlier order which has already been considered and decided in W.P.(S) No. 6547/2006. 7. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition amounts to misuse ofjudicial process and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. I ^ _,, Satish K. Agmhotri Judge ^"y "B^It*BN@S*4^Wn|W^-B"*-'»nnnBiniiiliuiiillULJekuwaanuKE: