O (D BEFRE O THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIARH SG AT B. ILASPUR w.p. o ig?/2003. ) PETINER TIO i kumar Roychoudhry aged abou 9 years, s/o Late IS.K.Roychoudhry Ex—Branch Manager, Allahabd Bank, r/o Shree Kunj, Lane R-3, Vinbé— nagar, P.O. & Distt. Bilasgur, C.G. llahaad Bank, through Chairman cum Managin Director, 2qNetaji, Subhash Roaé, Kolkata,— 700001 . The General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata, 700001. The Assitant General Manager, Allahaba Bank, Arera Colony. Bhopal , I W§3FR ARIIQ’IE ?;6 QUEJLQOIV STIIHJELMMA EQR Issug‘lj‘CE OF WRIT OF CERTlORARIhmmg-Amus AND ANY OTHER ,walT/DIRECTloyORDER . wV N. 2’. QB / S’u t ,W‘§ a o VERSUS Ab g 2, d . 1 M HIGH COURT OF‘ CHHATTISGARH A'l‘ BILASPUR WP. N0. 1872 0f2003 Petitioner Sulmmar Roy Choudhaty Versus Respondents Allahabad Bank and others SB: Hon’ble Mr, Justic: Satish K. Agnlhotxi, J > Shri B. R. Ghosh, Advocate with Smt Meera Jayaswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V. C. Ottalwar, Advocate for the mspondents. ORDER ( 29th August, 2006) The following order of tbs Court is passed by sétish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The: pc=titioner was appointed as Clerk in tha Allahabad Bank at Raipur. A charge sheet Was issued and enquiry was conducted against the patitinner. After enquiry was held, the sawices of thc petitionar was removed vide order dated 24. 12. 1988. Being aggrievad the petitioner filed a wn't petition before the High Court. of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, being M.P.No.2178/ 1992 challenging the order of removal from service dated 24.12.1988, which according to the petitioner was dismissed. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, challenging the order passed, by the High Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner has not filed any order of the High, Court or the Supreme Court, except the statement made in the wn’t petition. 2. There is no reason, as to why the statement of the petitioner in regard to dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court and. dismissal. of the Special Leave Petition thereaiter hy the Supreme Court, be not accepted. He admits that'the petition challenging the onder dated A 24.12.1988 where~under and whereby the peh'tioner’s sttrvices were removed, were dismissed by the High Court as wall as Spemial Leave Petition hy the Supreme Court. The petitioner has filsd this petition seeking the same relief if; quashing of the order of removal fmm service dated 24. 12.1988, ihemafter tha order dated 19. 1.1990 passed in appaal and order passed in revision, continuing the order of removal dated 24. 12. 1988. . In View of the fact that the petitioner has already availed of the remedy by filing writ petition, which stande dismissed, the petitioner is estopped from raising the same in View of the principles of res-judicata, before this Court hy filing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. of India. This petition is blatant misuse ofjudicial process. The petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable with cost quantified to be Rs. 2000/2 Sd/ sau'sh K. Agm'hom- . M Judge ~