The withdrawal of a previous petition without obtaining permission to bring a fresh petition on the same cause of action precludes the filing of a present petition, in line with the policy underlying Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, S K Bardewa, was a permanent member of Sikkim State Civil Service and was working as Additional Secretary, Programme Implementation and Evaluation Department when disci phnary proceedings were initiated against him vide Memo No 538/gen/dop dated 5-6-1996 on the charge that while serving as Deputy Director, Information and Public Relation Department, Government of Sikkim he applied for and secured a loan of Rs 2 lakhs from the Sikkim Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd , (SID1co) Gangtok in his capacity as proprietor of M/s Himalchuh Hotel, Development Area and engaged himself directly in Trade and Business in violation of rule 16 of Sikkim Govt Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1981 Enquiry was conducted by Shri M. K. Pradhan who submitted his report on 24-1-1997 Annexure P-7 It appears from the report that no oral evidence was produced before the Enquiry Officer and he gave his findings on the basis of the documents placed before him He recorded the following findings (I) The petitioner had applied for loan for construciton of a hotel in the name of Himalchuh in Development Area after completing due formalities as per SIDICO requirements In the application he had stated himself to be the sole proprietor/partner/managing director of the concerned firm/company, (II) The petitioner stated vide item three of the affidavit that he was not an employee of the State government or any institution controlled by the State Government and it was necessary that a senior government servant did not give wrong information to the effect that he was not a government servant even when he was holding a senior post in the Government, (III) Repayment of loan had been dismal resulting in the SIDICO approaching the court of Certificate Officer, Government of Sikkim to issue a certificate of public demand certifying that the petitioner S K Bardewa, proprietor Himalchuh Hotel, Development Area was liable to pay Rs 3,94,557 59 as due to SIDICO, the certificate holder, and (IV) No Objection Certificate issued by the Secretary, Information and Public Relations indicates only loan from SIDICO and does not specifically state that the loan was obtained for the purpose of construction of a hotel futher the report stated"duly examining all the aspects and all sides of the matter, there has been serious lapses on the part of Shir S K Bardewa in providing a wrong informa tion in the affidavit etc and not inform ing the Govt about construction of hotel, completion thereof and running of the actual hotel by his son Shri Satish Bardewa in this premises After obtain ing the licence for running a hotel in his name, though Shn S K Bardewa has also declared himself to be the proprie tor of the hotel and has his residence in the premises of the hotel building the Deptt of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Train ing has however pre ferred to keep silent and did not reply or explained nor clarified the points raised regarding the validity of the No Objection Certificate issued by head of Deptt Although it is pertinent that Sikkim Govt Servant (Conduct Rules) 1981 being administered by the then Establishment Deptt now Deptt of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Training, it should have been the correct authority to deal with such matters Due to the silence of the Deptt of Personal the element of doubt has been raised". Thereafter, the Government consulted the Public Service Commission Vide letter No 1183/spsc/97 dated 14th March, 1997 the Commission communicated the findings/ad vice vide their report signed by the Secretary of the Commission The Commission reported that the State Government had followed the required formalities for conducting the disci phnary proceedings and based on the facts gathered during enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had found the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him vide enquiry report dated 20-1-1997 Thereafter Order No 3365/ (G)/ DPO dated 18-3-1997 was issued by the Governme