A writ petition based on the same cause of action already decided by another High Court is barred and not maintainable.

The Petitioner, a dismissed employee, challenged his dismissal order dated 21.04.2003.

He previously approached the High Court of Jharkhand via W.P.(S) No. 897/2006, which was dismissed on 16.05.2017.

The Single Judge allowed him to file a representation regarding his acquittal in a criminal case (Sessions Case No. 666 of 2000).

The Respondents rejected said representation on 21.08.2017.

The Petitioner then filed an intra-court appeal (LPA No. 378/2017) before the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, which was dismissed on 12.03.2018.

A subsequent Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court was also dismissed.

The Petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking to quash the same dismissal orders and the rejection of his representation.

1. Whether a fresh writ petition is maintainable before the Delhi High Court when the same cause of action has been adjudicated by another High Court and the Supreme Court.

2. Whether the acquittal of the Petitioner in a criminal trial necessitates the setting aside of the disciplinary order of dismissal.

The Court applied the principle of res judicata and the finality of litigation, noting that a cause of action once decided by a competent Division Bench and upheld by the Supreme Court cannot be reopened.

It further relied on the legal distinction between departmental proceedings and criminal trials, noting that the standard of proof in the former is "preponderance of probabilities" while the latter requires "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

The court also recognized that charges of "misconduct and indiscipline" are distinct from criminal charges under Section 307 of the IPC.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s primary contention—that his criminal acquittal entitles him to reinstatement—had already been exhaustively analyzed and rejected by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in LPA No. 378/2017.

The Jharkhand High Court had specifically ruled that the Petitioner's acquittal was not "honourable" and that the disciplinary authority’s findings were based on independent evidence and witness testimonies.

The Delhi High Court noted that the rejection of the Petitioner’s representation (dated 21.08.2017) occurred prior to the Jharkhand Division Bench's final judgment; thus, those issues were already within the knowledge of the previous court.

Consequently, the Delhi High Court found that the Petitioner was attempting to relitigate the same cause of action.

The Court answered that once a matter has attained finality through the appellate chain, it cannot be entertained by a different High Court.

The writ petition was dismissed.