.<) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAiyi AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 377 of2005 Yadavfam Jangde, S/o Pyarelal Jangade, aged about 32 years, R/o village Tengana Varpara, PSA Gum, District Durg, At present resident of Community Church Bhilai, Sector 6 BUlai, Durg (Chhattisgarh). RESPONDENTS : 1. State of'Chhattisgarh tiirough Department of Home, DKS-Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Superintendent of Police, Bastar, District Bastai' Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh). 3. Director General of Police, Bastar Range, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chliattisgarh). (WRIT PE'nriON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTn'U'HON OF INDL4.) (SB: Hon'Me Mr. Satish K. Aauhotri. J.) Present : Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sumta Jain, Panel Lswyei forthe State. OKAL ORDER (Passed on 28°'day ofFebruaury, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, tiie matter is takea up tbr hearuig finally. 1. The petitioner has come earlier in tiie writ petition being VV.P. No. 2735/2003. This court held that the enquiiy held was proper, as the contention with regard to findines ofno confidence was not established. Thus, fhe eontention ofthe petitioner in respect ofdepartmental enquiry was rejected. With re.gard to quantum of sentence, the court observed that "under the writ jurisdiction this court cannot substitute its findings in the matter of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority wliieh is within their domain aiid they have to take decision lookins to the facts and circumstaiices of each and every 2 3. Sahu case. The writ jiirisdiction of this Court is extended only when the / punishment awarded is such which is shocking tlie conscience of the Court." After recording the fiadings as stated above, the petitioner was granted liberty to make representation before the authority. Thus, the grounds raised hereiii have ali-eady the subject matter ofjfae earlier viTit petition being W.P. No. 2735/2003. wlierein, the court has considisred and decided identical contentions raised by the petitioner in otlier petition. ^•s Once the issues raised have been cbnsidered by the High Court, second time, fhe saine issue camiot be considered in subsequent writ petition arising from tlie same cause ofaction, on the similar grounds. This court camiot sit as an appellate court agaiiist the judgment passed by a coordinate Single Judge. Thus, having regard to facts situation of the case, the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Coiistrtution oflndia, is not mamtainable. The petition is accordingly dismissed as not mamtainable. No order astocosts. Consequently, pending applications, ifany, stand disposed of Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge pr;