ARINDAM LODH,J. - (1.)Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Baran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents.
(2.)The petitioner, by way of filing the instant petition, has prayed for the following reliefs:-
'In the premises whereof, it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that Your Lordships would be graciously pleased to:

(i) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, for transmitting the records, lying them, for rendering substantive and conscionable justice to the petitioner, and for quashing/setting aside the impugned Memorandum dtd. 22/6/2022, the impugned Order dtd. 9/9/2022 and the impugned Order dtd. 15/10/2022 (Annexures-6, 8 and 10 respectively supra);

(ii) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, mandating/directing them, to forthwith revoke/rescind the impugned Memorandum dtd. 22/6/2022, the impugned Order dtd. 9/9/2022 and the impugned Order dtd. 15/10/2022 (Annexures-6, 8 and 10 respectively supra), and further, for mandating/directing them, to reinstate the petitioner in service, with effect from the date of his dismissal from service, i.e.15/10/2022, along with all other consequential benefits;

(iii) Issue Rule, calling upon the respondents and each one them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Prohibition and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued, restraining/prohibiting them, from acting in any manner, in furtherance of the impugned Memorandum dtd. 22/6/2022, the impugned Order dtd. 9/9/2022 and the impugned Order dtd. 15/10/2022 (Annexures-6, 8 and 10 respectively supra);

(iv) In the Ad-interim, and thereafter, on hearing the parties, in the Interim, an Order, in terms of Relief (iii) supra;

(v) Call for the records, appertaining to this writ petition;

(vi) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule absolute in terms of (i) to (ii) above;

(vii) Costs of and incidental to this proceeding:

(viii) Any other Relief(s) as to this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper;'

Briefly stated, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Articles of charge were framed. A full-fledged inquiry was conducted. Petitioner has no grievance against the proceeding of the inquiry. Ultimately, the Inquiring Authority after consideration of the articles of charge and the evidence on record held that the petitioner was guilty of any of the charges under the articles of charge framed by the concerned authority. The matter was reported to the Disciplinary Authority who disagreed with the findings of the Inquiring Authority.

(3.)Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to a Memorandum dtd. 29/4/2022, issued by the Disciplinary Authority, wherein, it transpires that the Inquiring Authority while arriving at the finding did not assign substantial reasons and also did not discuss the articles of charge. The petitioner submitted representation on 5/7/2022 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition]. In response to the said representation, the Disciplinary Authority had issued an order on 9/9/2022 stating that the representation of the accused-officer i.e. the petitioner herein, was carefully examined and found that there was no merit in the representation and accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority provisionally dismissed the petitioner from service as penalty vide order dtd. 15/10/2022.
;