JUDGMENT
S.S. Jha and A.K. Gohil, JJ.
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of single Bench – dismissing the writ petition of appellant on December 15, 1998. Appellant filed a writ petition for quashing the enquiry report filed as Annexure P/9 with the writ petition and prayed that the order dated April 5, 1995 passed by this Court in M.P. No. 150/81 be implemented and back-wages be paid to the petitioner with compensation amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs on account of mental agony also suffered by the petitioner.
2. Petitioner has filed a writ petition (M. P. No. 150/81) which was decided on April 5, 1995 in which directions were given for payment of back-wages as well as pensionary benefits within a period of three months. The order passed by the Tribunal was upheld and appellant was allowed to rejoin the service on April 24, 1995. He retired on June 30, 1995. He filed contempt petition (M.C.C. No. 359/95) for enforcement of order passed in writ petition on November 17, 1995. In that (sic) M.C.C. College authorities were directed to ascertain as to whether the petitioner was engaged in gainful employment. Vide Annexure P/6 on November 30, 1995 a detailed affidavit was submitted by the petitioner that he was not gainfully employed. On November 27, 1995 and February 23, 1996, an enquiry was held and the report was submitted that the petitioner was gainfully employed.
3. Petitioner has filed one after another contempt petitions and in the last petition, it was observed that enquiry has been conducted and State Government has passed the order on the enquiry report holding therein that the petitioner was gainfully employed. Single Bench then held that findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee cannot be looked into in writ jurisdiction unless final order is challenged and writ petition was dismissed. Thereafter, this appeal is filed. On enquiry from counsel whether he has challenged the order dated November 28, 1997 which was filed in contempt petition (M.C.C. No. 178/96) affording opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the order of the State Government, he stated that the petitioner has filed the petition but has not challenged the order passed by the State Government. The order was within the knowledge of the petitioner and without challenging the order, he has simply challenged the enquiry report. In our opinion single Bench has not committed any error in dismissing the petition as main order was not challenged. No case is made out for interference. Appeal fails and is dismissed without any order as to costs.