IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10970 of 2005 PREM CHAND SHRIVASTAVA Versus THE BHOJPUR ROHTAS GRAMIN BANK & ORS. ----------- 6 22.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner wants quashing of the order dated 16.5.1988 which is the order passed by the Chairman of the bank confirming the order of General Manager which enforced punishment of withholding of two increments as a consequence of holding of a departmental enquiry on a set of charges. The origin to the present dispute started in the year, 1982 and a set of charges were brought against the petitioner. That was the basis in the background under which series of writ applications and LPAs came to be filed by the petitioner. But the matter stretched itself to the year, 2004 when in a writ application bearing CWJC No.5627 of 2002 the decision communicated to the petitioner by the appellate authority was quashed and set aside only on the ground that it was a cryptic order without giving any reason. A direction therefore was given to pass a speaking order. The speaking order dated 4.5.2004 has been communicated to the petitioner by forwarding letter dated 5.5.2004 and the same is contained in annexure-15 to the writ application. The petitioner is back again in the present writ application trying to get at the bottom of litigation afresh under the garb of challenging annexure 14 which in the opinion of this Court cannot be permitted. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the - 2 - respondents they have explained the background the proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner. Initially there was certain procedural lapse which was not in dispute, which led to interference by this Court when the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction. But now in terms of the order dated 8.4.2004 if a speaking order which has dealt with all the issues raised by the petitioner has finally came to be passed and which on bare perusal now does not disclose any infirmity, the matter ought to be allowed to rest. Petitioner is a valiant fighter but then all wars must end in peace and more so when the petitioner is a retired person. There is no merit in the present writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)