1 1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8414/2007 Ram Kumar Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan, Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Date of Order :: 2nd January 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.V.K.Sharma for the petitioner Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is satisfied that this writ petition does not merit admission. The petitioner has averred in the petition that his services were terminated on 22.08.2001 (Annex.2) on the charge of theft of Air Conditioner and a criminal prosecution was launched against him; that against the termination order, he preferred a writ petition, SBCWP No.708/2002, that was decided on 02.04.2002 with the observations that in case acquitted, it would be open for him to assail the sustainability of the termination order on appropriate grounds; that, after trial the competent Court acquitted the petitioner from the charges of theft on 03.06.2004 (Annex.1); that the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director on 24.09.2004 (Annex.4) and addressed reminders on 10.01.2005 and 09.05.2005 (Annex.4 and Annex.5) for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law but no order was 2 passed in that regard; that, thereafter; the petitioner served a notice for demand of justice through his lawyer on 19.09.2005 for decision of his appeal, yet no order was passed in the appeal submitted by him; that thereafter, he filed a writ petition being SBCWP No.6978/2005, before this Court that was, according to the petitioner, withdrawn with liberty to file afresh to challenge the order impugned as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The order dated 14.09.2006 (Annex.8) passed in the aforesaid CWP No.6978/2005 on the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners reads thus:- “The petitioner preferred this petition for writ giving challenge to validity correctness and propriety of the order dated 22.8.2001 passed by the Superintending Engineer (CHP), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. The petitioner also preferred an appeal giving challenge to the same order. It is stated that the appeal has been decided by the appellate authority and with a view to give challenge to the order passed by the appellate authority the petitioner want to withdrawn this writ petition. Accordingly, this petition for writ is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh to challenge the order impugned as well as the order passed by the appellate authority.” It is now contended by the petitioner in this writ petition filed on 17.12.2007 that his appeal has not been decided yet; that he filed representation on 24.09.2006 on the basis of the aforesaid order dated 14.09.2006 but the same has also not 3 been decided by the respondents. The petitioner has prayed for the reliefs, inter alia, that the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the appeal submitted by him in accordance with law. The submissions made in this writ petition that the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been decided stands squarely contrary to the statement that was made before the Court on 14.09.2006 in CWP No.6978/2005 as noticed supra. It was categorically stated on behalf of the petitioner while seeking to withdraw the said writ petition that the appeal had been decided by the appellate authority and he wanted to withdraw the writ petition with a view to give challenge to the order passed by the appellate authority. It was on the basis of such statement alone that the earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh to challenge the order impugned as well as the order passed by the appellate authority! Learned counsel for the petitioner was repeatedly put to the query that the stand sought to be taken now by the petitioner that his appeal has never been decided is contrary and contradictory to the statement made earlier; and in any event, standing the order dated 14.09.2006, how the present petition could be treated competent? Learned counsel for the petitioner responded with the submissions that such statement 4 was made on behalf of the petitioner by the counsel without his instructions and the petitioner has made a complaint to the Bar Council in that regard. The submissions are not convincing so far the competence of the present petition is concerned. The order dated 14.09.2006 as passed by this Court stands final and, in the face of the said order, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take a contradictory stand by way of this writ petition; and for this reason alone, exercise of writ jurisdiction in this matter deserves to be refused. The petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni