SUDAMA RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 20.11.1999, whereby petitioner was removed from the services and subsequent order dated 10.12.2007, whereby claim of the petitioner for his reinstatement in service has been rejected, are being assailed in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) PETITIONER has earlier filed C.W.J.C. No. 116 of 2000 in the Patna High Court before bifurcation of the State, assailing the order dated 20.11.1999, whereby petitioner was directed to be removed from the services. After the appointed day, C.W.J.C. No. 116 of 2000 stood transferred to this Court. This Court had dismissed the C.W.J.C. No. 116 of 2000 for nonprosecution, vide order dated 20.04.2004. Petitioner, thereafter, has moved an application being C.M.P. No. 219 of 2004 for recalling the order dated 20.04.2004 and to restore C.W.J.C. No. 116 of 2000 at its original number. However, C.M.P. No. 219 of 2004 was also dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 11.05.2007. Order dismissing the restoration application was never challenged by the petitioner and has attained finality.

(3.) IT is true that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not be governed by the procedure provided for the suits in the Civil Procedure Code. However, there is a caveat to it that broad principles of Code of Civil Procedure can be pressed in service while hearing the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is now common practice in almost every High Court that amendment application in the writ petition is moved on the broad principles of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. Not only this, Section 151 C.P.C. is pressed in service while seeking and granting interim orders. Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. reads as under :