BIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present matter has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Bench on 25th of August, 2015 to examine the question as to whether the writ application can be said to be maintainable against the order of punishment dated 31st of October, 2014 (Annexure-20) in view of an earlier order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.11691 of 1994 on 2.11.1999 (Birendra Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.) wherein it was held that the writ application is maintainable against the order of punishment of an employee of the Cooperative Society. Such order was affirmed in L.P.A. No.1541 of 1999(Central Cooperative Bank, Arrah & Anr. v. Birendra Singh & Ors.) on 12th of December, 2000. However, in a latter five Judge Bench Judgment, reported in 2014 (1) P.L.J.R. 695 (The Organizer, Dehri C.D. & C.M. Union Ltd. v. The State of Bihar & Ors) it was held that the writ application against the Cooperative Society is not maintainable. The relevant findings read as under:

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a Supreme Court order, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1531, (A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr.) to contend that the issue regarding maintainability of the writ application stands decided by the learned Single Bench of this Court and later by the Division Bench, therefore, the inter party decision is binding on the respondents and the writ application would be maintainable in view the principles offers judicata, the reliance was on the following para :-. "27. It was submitted that power under Section 526 of the old Code corresponding to Section 407 of the new Code can be exercised qua a Special Judge. This power, according to Shri Jethmalani, is exerciseable by the High Court in respect of any case under Section 407(1) (iv) irrespective of the Court in which it is pending. This part of the section is not repealed wholly or protanto, according to the learned counsel, by anything in the 1952 Act. The Constitution Bench, it was submitted, consciously exercised this power. It decided that the High Court had the power to transfer a case to itself even from a Special Judge. That decision is binding at least in this case and cannot be reopened, it was urged. In this case what was actually decided cannot be undone, we were told repeatedly. It will produce an intolerable state of affairs. This Court ought to recognise the distinction between finality of judicial orders qua the parties and the review ability for application to other cases. Between the parties even a wrong decision can operate as res judicata. The doctrine of res judicata is applicable even to criminal trials, it was urged. Reliance was placed on Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (1972) 2 SCC 466: (AIR 1972 SC 1502). A judgment of a High Court is binding in all subsequent proceedings in the same case; more so, a judgment which was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court."

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the cause of action in the earlier round of litigation was the order of punishment dated 16th of August, 1994. It is the said orders which were set aside in the earlier writ application on 2nd November, 1999 and affirmed by the Division Bench on 12.12.2000.