1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4887 OF 2010 (DURGADAS MAHADEO TELRANDHE...VS.. EXECUTIVE ENGR. MAH. JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN. ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. A.P. Shinde, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. D.M.Kakani, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 14, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the petition. In the earlier round of litigation arising from and out of Writ Petition No.3573 of 2008, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 27th July, 2009, the chargesheet was set aside for want of prior communication under Section 27(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (“1982 Rules” for short) and the respondents were permitted to issue fresh chargesheet in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer of respondent Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Mumbai has granted sanction in exercise of powers under Section 27(2)(b) of 1982 Rules and fresh chargesheet has been issued. Again the said chargesheet is subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under Rule 27(2)(b) of 1982 Rules the sanction of the State Government is necessary and not that of the Chief Executive Officer of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Mumbai. She further submits that after expiry of the period of four years fresh chargesheet cannot be issued as such the Departmental Enquiry cannot be allowed to be proceeded with. Per contra, Mr. Kakani learned counsel appearing for the respondent Pradhikaran submits that the respondent Pradhikaran is an independent autonomous body and therefore, its Chief Executive Officer is the officer who is supposed to grant permission under Rule 27(2)(b) since the said Rule will have to apply mutadis-mutandis. He further submits that so far issuance of further chargesheet is concerned, that right of Pradhikaran was kept intact by this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.3573/2008. He thus, submits that the said objection cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage, especially when the very same objection was not raised in the earlier round of litigation, consequently, the order dated 27th July, 2008 will operate as 'Constructive Resjudicata'. Mr. Kakani further submits that in Union of India & Anr. .vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in 2007(1) CLR 67 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a mere show cause notice or chargesheet does not infringe right of anyone and that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily be not exercised for quashing show cause notice or chargesheet. 3 Having heard the rival contentions, the contention raised by Mr. Kakani for the respondent deserves acceptance in toto. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunisetty Satyanarayana is absolutely clear and applies with full force. In the earlier round of litigation the respondent was allowed to issue fresh chargesheet after obtaining permission under Rule 27(2)(b) of the Rules. Accordingly, permission had been granted. In these circumstances, no case is made out to entertain this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE RR..