(a) Firstly, the issue as to whether the application of the writ petitioner was submitted /forwarded to the ICAR through proper channel and if so, whether he was entitled to NOC to join the ICAR was the subject matter of dispute in WP(C) 5323/2022. After taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the stand of the contesting parties, the learned Single Judge has ruled in favour of the petitioner. The order dated 10/10/2023 has attained finality in the eyes of law, thus bringing a quietus to the dispute. Under such circumstances, it is no longer open for the respondents to rake up the said issue once again and initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the ground that his application was not forwarded through proper channel or that he was not entitled to the NOC. (b) Secondly, in WP(C) No. 5323/2022, the respondents had not reserved their rights to proceed against the writ petitioner by contending that the NOC, if issued, would be provisional. As such, it was not permissible for the respondents to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against a person who was no longer in their employment. (c) Thirdly, in so far as the plea raised by the learned CGC that the application submitted by the writ petitioner was contrary to the policy instruction as he had not completed 10 years of service in the department, I find that no such plea was taken up before the learned Single Judge. As such, the said aspect of the matter cannot be raised in the present proceeding.
