The court emphasized that the petitioner's repeated attempts to raise the same issue before the court in an attempt to stall the proceedings were unwarranted and amounted to an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. - CM Appl. 44072/2022

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 14451/2022 & CM Appl. 44073/2022 -Stay.

3. The petitioner, who is working as an E-8 level officer in the respondent no.2/organization, has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction as deemed fit &proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts of case directing Respondents not to let Respondent No.4 to act as Disciplinary Authority qua Petitioner &to further direct Respondents to remove Respondent No.4 from status of Disciplinary Authority qua Petitioner & appoint in her place independent, unbiased & disinterested person as Disciplinary Authority qua the Writ Petitioner for the pending inquiry as also all such matters.

(ii) To direct the Respondents not to let Respondent No.4 to deal with any matter pertaining to Writ Petitioner either directly or through her subordinates & to further direct that all such matters should be dealt with by any person not having any personal interest in the outcome of the pending & ongoing enquiry is against the Writ Petitioner.

(iii) To grant to the Writ Petitioner the cost of Writ Petition.

4. At the outset, it has been put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the present petition would be maintainable in view of the specific findings recorded by this Court while dismissing the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C)4962/2021 preferred by the petitioner, wherein he had sought quashing of the charge sheet on the very same ground i.e., of the respondent no.4/the disciplinary authority being biased against him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that even though the petitioner had earlier approached this Court on the very same grounds, the prayer sought in the present petition is different from that sought in the earlier writ petitions and therefore, the present petition is maintainable. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be considered on merits.

6. In support of the petition, he submits that not only was the charge sheet issued by respondent no.4, who has an inherent bias against him, but respondent no.4 being the disciplinary authority, even the inquiry report has been submitted to her. The petitioner apprehends that on account of her inherent bias, the respondent no.4 is likely to take a decision adverse to his interests and therefore prays that in lieu of respondent no.4, an independent person be appointed to consider the inquiry report.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, who appear on advance notice vehemently oppose the petition by contending that the present petition is an abuse of the process of law. They contend that the petitioner had, on earlier occasions, approached this Court by way of W.P.(C)2620/2021, W.P.(C)4962/2021 & W.P.(C)9094/2022, wherein he had sought to unsuccessfully stall the disciplinary proceedings against him by seeking quashing of the charge sheet inter alia on the very same ground that respondent no.4 had an inherent bias against him. Even though all these petitions preferred by him were dismissed by this Court and that too by granting him liberty to challenge the final order, the petitioner has still proceeded to indulge in this fourth round of litigation by filing the present petition when a final order in the disciplinary proceedings is yet to be passed. They, therefore, pray that the writ petition be dismissed with exemplary costs.

8. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that the reliefs sought in the earlier petitions preferred by the petitioner was different and therefore the present petition is maintainable on merits. He further submits that the first petition being W.P.(C)2620/2021 was filed at a stage when the charge-sheet against the petitioner had not been issued and, therefore, this Court had dismissed the aforesaid writ petition as being prematur