A third writ petition on the same cause of action is barred under public policy when earlier petitions were withdrawn without permission, reflecting principles of judicial efficiency and discouraging repetitive litigation.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)

Matter has been heard by way of video conferencing.

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 03rd November, 2007, 02nd December, 2007 and 27th June, 2009 whereby the petitioner was terminated from service. Petitioner also seeks directions to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and extend the same benefit granted to a similarly placed persons vide orders/judgments dated 18th October, 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 1859-2010 and W.P.(C) 4983-2010 to the petitioner. Petitioner also seeks a grant of all consequential benefits upon reinstatement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was terminated from service on account of a pending criminal case against him which he states that the petitioner was unaware of.

3. He states that after the applications and petitions preferred by the petitioner to the respondent authorities did not yield results, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No. 4987/2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18th October, 2010.

4. He states that the petitioner filed another W.P.(C) No.4203/2012 which was dismissed on 17th July, 2012 on the ground that the Court had not granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition in the order dated 18th October, 2010.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly points out that the SLP CC No. 20878-2013 was also dismissed vide a non-speaking order dated 09th December, 2013.

6. He emphasises that the petitioner, in November 2021, came to know that in identical writ petitions, W.P.(C) No.1859-2010 i.e. Sunil Kumar vs Union of India & Ors. and W.P.(C) 4983-2010 i.e. Ex. Rectt. Amit Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors., a coordinate Bench of this Court had granted relief to persons similarly situated as the petitioner, who had been falsely implicated in the same criminal case as the petitioner.

7. He states in the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the State of Uttarakhand took a decision to withdraw the prosecution and the petitioner stood acquitted from the charge-sheet vide order dated 03rd June, 2009 passed by the Court of District & Session Judge, Haridwar.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs State of Kerala & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359 wherein it has been held that dismissal at the stage of Special Leave by a non-speaking order does not constitute res-judicata and would not preclude the aggrieved party from seeking relief in the writ jurisdiction or review jurisdiction of the High Court.

9. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the first writ petition filed by the petitioner being W.P.(C) 4987/2010 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18th October, 2010. The said order dated 18th October, 2010 is reproduced hereinbelow:

"The original record has been produced. After some hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to withdraw the writ petition.

This writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn."

10. The second writ petition filed by the petitioner being W.P.(C) 4203/2012 was dismissed vide order dated 17th July, 20212 on the ground that a second petition on the same cause of action was not maintainable. The order dated 17th July, 2012 passed in W.P.(C) 4203/2012 is reproduced hereinbelow:

"1. On the same cause i.e. service being terminated while staying on probation; on the allegation that while seeking employment the petitioner suppressed a material fact of his being an accused for offences punishable under the Penal Code, the petitioner had filed WP(C) No.498