IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.263 of 2008 ----------- Bageshwari Mishra, son of Gaya Mishra, resident of village Magurha, P.O. Magurha, P.S. Gobindganj, District East Champaran. …Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant versus 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi, District New Delhi. 2. Group Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Group Headquarter, Patna, PO & PS Patna, District Patna. 3. Deputy Inspector General (C.I.S.F.) Headquarter Eastern Zone, 41 Karaya Road, Park Circus, Calcutta now shifted to New Patliputra, Patna. 4. Officer in Charge, C.I.S.F., Patna, PO & PS- Patna, District Patna. 5. Assistant Commandant Group Headquarter, C.I.S.F. , Patna PO & PS-Patna, District Patna. 6. Sri B.S. Das Mahapatra, Asstt. Commandant Group Headquarter, C.I.S.F., Patna. ………Defendants-Respondents-Respondents. ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, Advocate. For the Respondents: None. ------ 05/ 05.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No. 121 of 1991, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant-appellant challenging the order of dismissal from his service in the Central Industrial Security Force ( hereinafter referred to as `the C.I.S.F.’ for the sake of brevity ) by the authority concerned. The said suit was dismissed on contest by the learned Munsif, Sadar, Motihari vide his judgment and decree dated 30.11.1994. 2 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 04 of 1995 (4/2006), which was also dismissed on contest by learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-I, East Champaran, vide his judgment and decree dated 15.04.2008. The said judgment and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. Although learned counsel for the appellant vehemently opposes the findings of the learned courts below on the basis of specific grounds taken by him in the memorandum of appeal, but the fact remains that the appellant was a constable in BRL, Ramgarh Unit under the C.I.S.F. and he was suspended vide order of the authority concerned dated 18.08.1984 and was subsequently dismissed from service vide order of the authority concerned dated 07.01.1985 after departmental proceeding conducted against him. The said order was challenged by the plaintiff-appellant before the appellate authority but the said appellate authority dismissed his appeal, whereafter the plaintiff- appellant filed a writ petition in this Court, which was also dismissed and even his S.L.P. filed in the Hon’ble Apex Court was rejected in limine. 6. In the said circumstances and also in view of the settled principle of law, the claim of the plaintiff raised in the title suit after losing up to the Hon’ble Apex Court was absolutely frivolous and misconceived. Furthermore after considering the 3 materials as well as the arguments, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of both the learned courts below nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)