JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. At the outset, it has been pointed out that there is some typographical error in the order dated 09.02.2026 wherein due to inadvertence, the reference of the case has been typed as “W.P.(C) No. 4019 of 2020” in place of “W.P.(S) No. 4019 of 2020”. 2. Accordingly, the order dated 09.02.2026 is modified to the extent that the reference of the case which has been typed as “W.P.(C) No. 4019 of 2020” be replaced with “W.P.(S) No. 4019 of 2020” and the remaining part of the order shall remain intact. 3. The original file pertaining to W.P.(S) No. 3532 of 2013 has been placed as directed by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2026. 4. We have perused the record of the said writ petition and has found that the said writ petition is in the nomenclature of service matter. 5. The order passed by the learned Tribunal had been challenged by the writ petitioner by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as such, the writ petition will be in the nomenclature of service matter being W.P.(S). 6. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 02.01.2013 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Circuit Bench), Ranchi in O.A. No. 62 of 2011 (R) by which the order passed by the respondent authority inflicting punishment of termination from service vide order dated 21.09.2010 and the appellate order dated 17.02.2011 has been refused to be interfered with. 7. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, are as under: The Petitioner was initially appointed as a TGT (Trained Graduate Teacher) at Kendra Vidyalaya, Ramgarh Cantonment and thereafter he was subsequently posted in many places. The Petitioner while being posted as a PGT (Physics) Teacher at Kendra Vidyalaya, Gomoh, a girl wrote a Letter dated 25/10/2008 addressing to the ersthwhile Principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya School, alleging therein in the complaint that the petitioner used to do immoral acts with her at the School Lab. The Petitioner while being posted as a PGT (Physics) Teacher at Kendra Vidyalaya, Gomoh, a girl wrote a Letter dated 25/10/2008 addressing to the ersthwhile Principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya School, alleging therein in the complaint that the petitioner used to do immoral acts with her at the School Lab. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, on receipt of the complaint, the then Principal without even communicating the allegation of compliant to the petitioner and not even investigating the same from the petitioner or by any other School Staffs, Teachers or Students, on the same day itself formed a Three Member Committee consisting of three female teachers only, directed the Teachers Committee to investigate the matter on the allegations made against the petitioner as contained in the complaint. On the same day i.e. on 25.10.2008, the School Committee gave the finding that the allegation made against the Petitioner is true. Thereafter, the erstwhile Principal after receiving the School Committee Report on the same day itself i.e. on 25.10.2008 forwarded the Complaint addressing to the Assistant Commissioner- cum-ad hoc Disciplinary Authority for Kendra Vidyalaya Sangathan, RO, Bhubaneshwar stating it to be an Enquiry Report. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner-cum-ad hoc Disciplinary Authority for Kendra Vidyalaya Sangathan, RO, Bhubaneshwar after receiving the aforesaid Letter from the erstwhile Principal, the Assistant Commissioner at his own instance constituted a Five-Member Committee for conducting the Preliminary Enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended from his service vide Letter Ref No-F.13-Gen (18) 2008 KVS (HR-BBSR)/14672 dated 08.12.2008 even before conclusion and conduction of the Preliminary Enquiry. The petitioner, after being suspended and knowing the same represented to the Assistant Commissioner-cum- Ad hoc Disciplinary Authority for Kendra Vidyalaya Sangathan RO, Bhubaneshwar (Disciplinary Authority) vide Representation Letter dated 29.12.2008 wherein the petitioner has specifically contended that his suspension is the outcome of the conspiracy hatched against him and pleaded not guilty of the allegations made against him. It is the case of the petitioner that the Preliminary Enquiry conducted by the Five-Member Committee, the Committee had never examined the primary & necessary element in every Enquiry i.e. the Complainant herself and the complainant was never examined and the Five-Member Committee gave emphasis and relied only upon the statement given by the father of the complainant who was never present at the time of alleged incident and is a hearsay witness. Along with the father of the complainant, two other girl students were examined by the Five-Member Committee and they also didn't support the version of the complaint rather they had made no whisper or any statement regarding immoral act being committed by the Petitioner to the Complainant. On receipt of the Preliminary Enquiry Report, a Summary Enquiry Committee was constituted vide Office Order No-8299 dated 26.06.2009 consisting of three Members. Thereafter, the three member committee directed all concerned witness to remain present on 20.07.2009 to conduct the Summary Enquiry at Kendra Vidyalaya No.1, Bokaro. It is the specific case of the petitioner that during the course of Summary Enquiry being conducted by the Three Member Committee, the Complainant Girl was examined and she herself became hostile and did not support her complaint against the petitioner and instead of that the complainant testified by her own free will without any coercion that the complaint was lodged because of some misunderstanding and she now wants to withdraw it and the same stand was taken by the complainant's father at the time of summary enquiry before the three member committee. It is further case of the petitioner that even though no evidence was found against the petitioner and the complainant herself out of free will withdrew the complaint, after the summary enquiry report conducted by the committee, the petitioner was terminated from his services vide Order dated-21.09.2010 by the Commissioner, KVS (Vigilance Section), New Delhi. Thereafter, against the Order of Termination, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, after receiving the memo of appeal the Appellate Authority, rejected the Appeal vide Order dated 17.02.2011 preferred by the petitioner against the Termination Order. Being aggrieved by the Appellate Order dated 17.02.2011 and termination order dated 21.09.2010, the petitioner approached and moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal and preferred an Original Application bearing No- 62/2011(R) which was dismissed vide Order dated 02.01.2013 by the Division Bench of CAT, Circuit Bench at Ranchi without even considering the legal aspects of the case. 8. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner, while working as teacher, has been found to be involved in commission of moral turpitude by misutilising his official position for the purpose of teaching the female students. The same was complained and based upon that an internal committee was constituted by the Principal of the respondent-Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. 9. The same was complained and based upon that an internal committee was constituted by the Principal of the respondent-Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. 9. The allegation had been found to be true. The disciplinary authority, accepting the same, has terminated the petitioner from service against which the appeal had been preferred which had also been dismissed. 10. Both the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority had been challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing original application being O.A. No. 62 of 2011 (R) which had also been dismissed by declining to interfere with the order dated 21.09.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 17.02.2011 passed by the appellate authority. 11. Thereafter, the writ petitioner had approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P.(S) No. 3532 of 2013 challenging the order dated 02.01.2013 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Circuit Bench), Ranchi in O.A. No. 62 of 2011 (R). 12. The said case was listed before the co-ordinate Bench on 22.11.2013 wherein three weeks’ time was granted to remove the defects making the said order peremptory in nature since the consequence was referred in the said order that if the defects will not be removed within three weeks, the writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically. Due to non-compliance of the said peremptory order, the said writ petition got dismissed. 13. The writ petitioner, thereafter, had preferred civil misc. petition being C.M.P. No. 181 of 2015 which was also dismissed for non- compliance of the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 14. Again, another civil misc. petition was filed filed being C.M.P. No. 427 of 2015 for restoration of C.M.P. No. 181 of 2015 but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 18.09.2017 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 15. Thereafter, the writ petitioner had moved to the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed in C.M.P. No. 427 of 2015 but the same was found to be defective and as such, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31.07.2019 had granted four weeks’ time to cure the defects as pointed out by the Registry. 15. Thereafter, the writ petitioner had moved to the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order passed in C.M.P. No. 427 of 2015 but the same was found to be defective and as such, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 31.07.2019 had granted four weeks’ time to cure the defects as pointed out by the Registry. The defects having not been cured, the case was again listed and on 16.09.2019, further four weeks’ time was allowed to comply with the order dated 31.07.2019 with a specific direction that if the defects will not be cured within the stipulated time, the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. The direction passed by the Hon’ble Apec Court for removing the defect had not been complied with, accordingly, the said Special Leave Petition got dismissed. 16. It is evident from the sequence of the orders that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is dated 02.01.2013 passed in O.A. No. 62 of 2011 (R). The same was challenged by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3532 of 2013 but the same was dismissed for non- compliance of the peremptory order and the said dismissal order has attained its finality by dismissal of special leave petition wherein also, the defects was not removed even in spite of peremptory order granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 31.07.2019. 17. The writ petitioner, in the instant writ petition, has again challenged the same order, i.e., order dated 02.01.2013 passed in O.A. No. 62 of 2011(R) which was the subject matter of W.P.(S) No. 3532 of 2013. 18. The question of maintainability of the second writ petition has vehemently been raised on behalf of the respondents. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition is maintainable since the adjudication of the case was not on merits and as such, the principle of res judicata will not be applicable. 20. 18. The question of maintainability of the second writ petition has vehemently been raised on behalf of the respondents. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition is maintainable since the adjudication of the case was not on merits and as such, the principle of res judicata will not be applicable. 20. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan has submitted that is not a question of applicability of the principle of res judicata rather it is the process of sheer misuse of the judicial proceeding since the order which was passed by the learned Tribunal in the year 2013, has been challenged by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3532 of 2013 and the same has been allowed to be dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order and not only that, even after dismissal of the second civil misc. petition, the special leave petition was preferred and even before the Hon’ble Apex Court, peremptory order was not complied with. 21. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this shows the conduct of the litigant concerned that he has taken the things for granted even after misusing the judicial proceeding by filing the writ petition and not complying the court’s order within time and even the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court allowing the time twice for removing the defects. 22. It has also been contended that the question of applicability of res judicata as is being raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable and maintaining the second writ petition without the leave of the Court, certainly is not maintainable. 23. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the pleading made in the writ petition as also the various orders passed by this Court. 24. The case is to be considered on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition being the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The fact of the case has already been referred hereinabove but for the sake of brevity, some of the admitted facts are being referred herein again, i.e., the original order passed by the learned Tribunal is dated 02.01.2013 passed in O.A. No. 62 of 2011 (R). The fact of the case has already been referred hereinabove but for the sake of brevity, some of the admitted facts are being referred herein again, i.e., the original order passed by the learned Tribunal is dated 02.01.2013 passed in O.A. No. 62 of 2011 (R). The writ petition was filed being W.P.(S) No. 3532 of 2013 challenging the order dated 02.01.2013 and on the very first day, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2013 had passed an order granting three weeks’ time to remove the defects, failing which the writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically. For ready reference, the said order dated 22.11.2013 is being referred as under: “ Order No.05 Dated 22 nd November, 2013 1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner, when the matter is called out. 2. However, three weeks’ time is granted to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, failing which the writ petition shall stand dismissed automatically.” 25. The aforesaid order having not been complied with, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3532 of 2013 got dismissed. 26. Thereafter, the writ petitioner had preferred civil misc. petition being C.M.P. No. 181 of 2015 which was also dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Subsequent thereto, the second civil misc. petition being C.M.P. No. 427 of 2015 was preferred for restoration of C.M.P. No. 181 of 2015. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2017 has declined to allow the restoration application by assigning the reason that no care has been taken to remove the defects pointed out by the office within time and as such, the Court has found no cogent reason to restore the earlier civil misc. petition being C.M.P. No. 181 of 2015. For ready reference, the order dated 18.09.2017 is being referred as under: “ 10/Dated 18 th September, 2017 Per D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been preferred for restoration of C.M.P. No. 181 of 2015, which was dismissed for non compliance of the order dated 31st August, 2015 passed by this court. Time was granted for removal of office defects on 31 st August, 2015. Thereafter the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition, i.e. C.M.P. No. 427 of 2015 was preferred on 6 th November, 2015. 2. Time was granted for removal of office defects on 31 st August, 2015. Thereafter the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition, i.e. C.M.P. No. 427 of 2015 was preferred on 6 th November, 2015. 2. Looking to the reasons stated in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, we find no cogent reason for restoration of the earlier Civil Miscellaneous Petition, i.e. C.M.P No. 181 of 2015. It appears that no care has been taken to remove the office defects in time and therefore, we see no reason to restore the earlier Civil Miscellaneous Petition, viz. C.M.P. No. 181 of 2015. 3. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is, hereby, dismissed.” 27. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has preferred special leave petition being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 21326/2018. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 31.07.2017 had allowed four weeks’ time to cure the defects as pointed out by the Registry. For ready reference, the order dated 31.07.2019 is being referred as under: “UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Last opportunity granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to cure the defects as pointed out by the Registry within four weeks from today.” 28. The defects having not been removed, as such, again the case was listed on 16.09.2019 and this time, four weeks’ further time was granted to comply with the order dated 31.07.2019 by making the said order peremptory in nature with the observation that if the order dated 31.07.2019 will not be complied with, the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. For ready reference, the said order dated 16.09.2019 is being referred as under: “UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER Four weeks’ time is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to comply with the order dated 31.07.2019 failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.” 29. The aforesaid order is dated 16.09.2019 and the admitted fact is that the defects had not been removed, as such, in consequence thereof, the said special leave petition had been dismissed. 30. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 02.01.2013 which was the subject matter of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3532 of 2013. 31. 30. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 02.01.2013 which was the subject matter of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3532 of 2013. 31. This Court is exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is a summary proceeding wherein the conduct of the party is having bearing. There is no dispute that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the limitation act is not applicable rather the principle of delay and laches is to be considered. But, herein, it is not a case either of applicability of limitation act or the delay and laches rather it is a case of the conduct of the writ petitioner and in such situation, the Court is to consider as to whether the present writ petition is to be entertained on merits taking into consideration the casual approach of the litigant concerned, the writ petitioner herein, who even in spite of the repeated time having been granted to remove the defects has not cured the defects and even the same conduct was there before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 32. The further admitted fact is that no effort was made by the petitioner for restoration of the dismissal of the special leave petition being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 21326/2018 which has been dismissed due to non-compliance of the order dated 31.07.2019 even though the peremptory order was passed to cure the defects within four weeks. 33. The writ petitioner, therefore, has accepted the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 21326/2018 has been dismissed on account of the peremptory order due to non-compliance of the Court’s order and as such, the issue of restoration which was agitated before this Court has attained its finality since herein also, the writ petitioner has taken two attempts for restoration of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3532 of 2013 which has also been allowed to be dismissed due to non-compliance of the peremptory order passed by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2013. 34. The ground has been agitated on behalf of the petitioner that the case has not been decided on merit, as such, the principle of res judicata will not be applicable. 35. 34. The ground has been agitated on behalf of the petitioner that the case has not been decided on merit, as such, the principle of res judicata will not be applicable. 35. We are conscious that in such circumstances, the principle of res judicata is to be made applicable and even though the principle of CPC is not applicable but the Court exercising the power of under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to take care of the issue of maintainability of the second writ petition for the same cause. 36. It is the settled position of law that if the first writ petition is being withdrawn and in absence of any liberty to prefer the second writ petition, then, the second writ petition is not to be entertained in absence of any liberty. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service case, (1987) 1 SCC 5 . Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is being referred as under: “8. … It is common knowledge that very often after a writ petition is heard for some time when the petitioner or his counsel finds that the court is not likely to pass an order admitting the petition, request is made by the petitioner or by his counsel to permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition without seeking permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A court which is unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit the withdrawal of the petition. “9. … But we are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order 23 of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in Bench-hunting tactics.” 37. Herein, it is not a case of even withdrawal rather herein, the case of the writ petitioner is of casual approach rather negligent approach after once moved to this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court but the defects have not been removed. 38. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in Bench-hunting tactics.” 37. Herein, it is not a case of even withdrawal rather herein, the case of the writ petitioner is of casual approach rather negligent approach after once moved to this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court but the defects have not been removed. 38. If the petitioner was vigilant about his right then, he ought to have cured the defects within time granted by this Court and even by the Hon’ble Apex Court but as per the admitted position, no efforts had been taken for restoration of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 21326/2018 rather the said petition had been allowed to die its natural death due to non-compliance of the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 39. This Court, in the aforesaid circumstances and by taking into consideration the conduct of the writ petitioner, is of the view that the forum of Article 226 of the Constitution of India has not been made for such litigant who are not vigilant of their right and taking the Court proceeding in a very casual manner. If the contention of the petitioner will be accepted then, it will amount to sheer wastage of Court’s time as would be evident from the orders passed twice by this Court and even by the Hon’ble Apex Court to cure the defects but even then, the defects have not been removed. 40. Otherwise also, if the prayer would be allowed then the dismissal of the writ petition in default due to non-compliance of the peremptory order as also the dismissal of civil misc. petition being C.M.P. No. 427 of 2015 filed for restoration of C.M.P. No. 181 of 2015 will stand automatically be allowed giving effect to the restoration of the writ petition which had already died its natural death. Equally, the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein even though time had been allowed but the defects had not been removed, the same will also be said to having no effect. 41. Equally, the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein even though time had been allowed but the defects had not been removed, the same will also be said to having no effect. 41. The question of dismissal of writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3532 of 2013, therefore, has attained its finality and hence, in view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that it will not be proper for this Court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order. 42. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and stands dismissed.