Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - (1.) THIS writ application has been preferred challenging, inter alia, an order dated 3rd January, 2009 passed by the respondent No. 3.
(2.) AS a prelude to the instant lis, it needs to be stated that the petitioner filed a writ application being W.P. No. 12410(W) of 2005 challenging, inter alia, the order of dismissal dated 15th March, 2005 passed by the respondent No. 5 and an order dated 19th May, 2005 passed by the appellate authority being the respondent No. 3 herein in the disciplinary proceeding which was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a charge -sheet dated 25th March, 2004 issued by the respondent No. 5. Upon contested herein the said writ application was finally disposed of on 7th August, 2008 directing the petitioner herein to submit a fresh representation before the appellate authority with a prayer for reconsideration of the order of punishment, within a period of 4 weeks and the said appellate authority was directed to consider the matter afresh and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner of an opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to the said order dated 7th August, 2008 passed in the earlier writ application, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation to the appellate authority on 2nd September, 2008 and thereafter, the respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 3rd January, 2009 refusing to interfere with the order of punishment of "dismissal without notice". Mr. Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of the respondent No. 3 refusing to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority has not been passed in strict compliance of the observations and directions contained in the order dated 7th August, 2008 and without appreciating the nuance of said order, the respondent No. 3 has rejected the petitioner's representation in a mechanical manner.
(3.) ACCORDING to him, the mitigating factors indicated by the petitioner in the representation dated 2nd September, 2008 have not been considered by the respondent No. 3 and the order impugned dated 3rd January, 2009 is bereft of a comparative assessment of the necessary riders for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to whether the imposition of the punishment of dismissal without notice was disproportionate.;