K G MHAISKAR Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order of dismissal dated 25th May, 1983 confirmed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 7th April, 1987 and again confirmed by the reviewing authority by its order dated 23rd September, 1987. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the said orders and prayed for reinstatement with full backwages and consequential benefits.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :

(3.) BEFORE we deal with the grievances ventilated by the petitioner before us, we wish to mention that this is the third writ petition which is filed by the petitioner and all the three writ petitions have been against the same order of dismissal. The earlier two writ petitions were filed basically complaining that the petitioner was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the Bank. The 1st writ petition was dismissed in limine on the ground that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal was pending. Thus the merits of the case were not obviously considered. However, the second writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1379 of 1986 which was filed culminated into Consent Terms wherein the only grievance of the petitioner regarding not being allowed to cross-examine the witnesses was taken care of. No other ground was taken in the said two petitions much less the new grounds which are now taken in the present writ petition. The same grounds, to say the least, were available if the petitioner was really aggrieved by the same. In our view, the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1379 of 1986 on the basis of the Consent Terms filed therein has become final and cannot be reopened. In fact the petitioner has acted in pursuance of the said order. To say that the Consent Terms do not bind parties and filing of a fresh petition, may be on a new ground on which the petitioner seems to have suddenly become aware, is an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen the entire matter by saying that these ground which he has taken in the present writ petition were not considered or decided. Either way, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the said orders passed in the disciplinary action taken by the Bank against him. Whether he had taken these grounds or not, he is bound by the Consent Terms. Non taking these grounds does not mean that the petitioner is free to file as many petitions as he wants on and when he is made aware of some new ground. In this view of the matter, the petition on this ground alone can be dismissed without consideration of any further arguments. However, instead of adopting this course, as we feel that as the grievances of the petitioner have been gone into at great length by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is better to deal with the grounds raised for the first time in the present writ petition.