Subsequent petition on the same issue is not maintainable if the earlier petition was withdrawn without preserving the liberty.

D. MURUGESAN, J.

1. The review applicant seeks to review the order dated 22.10.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.16933 of 2009. The review application arises under the following circumstances. The review applicant (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") entered into the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service as a Judicial Magistrate on 22.2.1982. After his promotion to the post of Subordinate Judge, he was promoted to the next cadre of District Judge on 3.5.2000 and he also served from 28.10.2002 to 31.12.2005 as District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uthagamandalam. As per the Rules applicable to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service, his performance was reviewed during the year 2007 for continuance in service beyond the age of 58 years and he was not permitted to continue. On a challenge to the said order, this Court set aside the same in a writ petition. Thereafter, he was re-instated into service on 17.10.2008 and posted as First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai. On attaining the age of superannuation, he was allowed to retire on 31.1.2009 without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings. On the date of retirement, a charge memo dated 20.1.2009 was pending. The above charge memo was questioned by the petitioner in W.P.No.1633 of 2009 and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the following order dated 28.1.2009.

"In view of the representation/endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petition Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are also dismissed. But, there shall be no order as to costs."

2. Thereafter, the petitioner once again filed Writ Petition No.16933 of 2009 questioning the very same charge memo, which was dismissed by the following order dated 22.10.2010.

"The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records from the first respondent connected with the impugned charge memo in C.No.66/2005/2005-VC (in ROC No.555/2005/2005/VC dated 20.01.2009 and order C.No.26/2005/VC (in Roc.No.259/2005/VC vide ROC No.803/2003/VC dated 20.1.2009, quash the same and grant such other reliefs.

2. The order, which the petitioner seeks to impugn in this writ petition, is a charge memo and as many as six charges have been levelled against the petitioner. At the relevant point of time, with regard to which charges have been framed against the petitioner, he was functioning as District Judge, Nilgris at Udhagamandalam. One of the charges relates to demand of Rs.5 lakhs as bribe from one of the persons by name Naharmal Bafna, who was arrayed as first accused in Sessions Case No.25 of 2002. Even the other charges were serious in nature.

3. According to the petitioner, earlier he was allowed to retire at the age of 58 years, that when he approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.16317 of 2007 challenging the order dated 25.01.2007 retiring him from service at the age of 58 without granting extension for two years, a Division Bench in its order dated 22.07.2008, examined the past records of the petitioner and found his service records as an unblemished one, that based on the said order of the Division Bench, the petitioner was re-employed by order dated 14.10.2008 and in the circumstances, it would be travesty of justice, if the petitioner were to face the enquiry in relation to the charges now levelled against him in the impugned charge memo dated 20.01.2009.

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the first respondent however brought to our notice that the very same charge memo dated 20.01.2009 was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.1633 of 2009 and that the said writ petition was unconditionally withdrawn by the petitioner by making an endorsement in the writ petition and that based upon the said endorsement, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 28.01.2009. The learned senior counsel would therefore contend that the petit