- (1.) On the 18th January, 1991, when the matter reached hearing, the petitioner appeared in person and stated that he had nothing to add to what he had placed on record in writing. The counsel for the respondent likewise stated that the reply of the Corporation is contained in its coun'ter. Both the parties desired that we should decide the matter on the basis of the written submissions. We adjourned the matter to this date for orders.
(2.) This petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The petitioner has adopted multiple proceedings so far, for claiming the same reliefs allegedly arising out of the same cause of action. When he was working as a Development Officer in the respondent-Corporation on January 23, 1961, he was charge sheeted for gross misconduct and indiscipline. On May 15, 1961, he was issued a show cause notice and on August 28, 1961, he was issued a formal charge-sheet and suspended from service. On August 27, 1962, he was dismissed from service after holding an inquiry.
(3.) The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. 461 -D of 1963 in the High Court, challenging his dismissal. The petition was dismissed by the High Court on May 29, 1963.;