Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) Facts: 1.1 Razzak Khan was an employee working with Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Ltd. at all material times. On October 31, 1975 he was charge-sheeted on the alleged theft of Gun Metal Gland kept clandestinely under his raincoat. An inquiry was held where he was found guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and dismissed him from service vide order dated December 30, 1975. A reference was made by the State to the Industrial Tribunal at the instance of the appellant to decide the issue whether his termination was justified. The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated April 28, 1982 held that the enquiry was fairly held and was valid. The Tribunal published its award on October 12, 1982 affirming the order of dismissal. 1.2 The appellant did not challenge the award of the Tribunal either before this Court or in any appropriate proceeding. After a lapse of eighteen years the appellant filed a writ petition on December 12, 2000 being W.P. No.l9793(W) of 2000. His Lordship allowed the Writ Petition to be withdrawn as it was found defective. Nine months later, he filed another writ petition being W.P. No. 15397(W) of 2001. His Lordship dismissed the writ petition holding that the same was a belated one. His Lordship's judgment and order appearing at page 19-22 depicts that the appellant contended before His Lordship that on the self-same charge the State proceeded against him in a criminal proceeding where he was acquitted. Hence, he was entitled to be reinstated. His Lordship observed that the acquittal was made in 1996 long after his dismissal which remained unchallenged. His Lordship dismissed the writ petition. The appellant again accepted the said decision by not challenging the same before the Division Bench by preferring any appeal. 1.3 The appellant filed another writ petition being W.P. No. 11577(W) of 2002 after crossing the age of superannuation, inter alia, praying for identical relief which was specifically rejected by His Lordship in the earlier writ proceeding. The learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated July 28, 2006 appearing at pages 131-133 of the paper book dismissed the writ petition. His Lordship observed that the subsequent writ petition was not maintainable. His Lordship also examined the merits of the matter and found that the Tribunal held that the domestic enquiry was fair and valid. No further evidence was laid by the parties before the Tribunal. No challenge was thrown before the Tribunal as against its earlier finding dated April 28, 1982. The appellant also failed to contend that evidence before the Enquiry Officer was insufficient to prove the charges. Leave was not sought to adduce any further evidence. His Lordship did not find any scope to interfere with the award of the Tribunal.
(2.) Appeal: Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge the writ petitioner preferred the instant appeal which was heard by us on the above mentioned date.
(3.) Contention of The Appellant : 3.1 Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the appellant contended before us that in the earlier writ proceeding the appellant asked for his reinstatement on the strength of the Criminal Court decision whereas the present writ petition was filed for quashing of the impugned award dated October 15, 1982. Hence, the earlier decision would not operate as res judicate and the second writ petition was maintainable. 3.2 On merits, Mr. Chatterjee contended that no Presenting Officer or Enquiry Officer was appointed. The enquiry was not conducted as per the Service Rules. The Tribunal ought to have interfered with the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority. Learned Counsel also contended that the appellant was an illiterate person. He was not aware of his rights and as such he could not pursue his remedy in time. This Court should consider the matter on merits ignoring the delay, if any caused while approaching this Court for redressal of his grievance. 3.3 Mr. Chatterjee relied on two decisions reported in 2003(1) SCC 184 (S.K. Mastan Bee vs. General Manager, South Central Railway & Anr.) and 2003(3) CHN 334 [Justice (Retd.) Debi Prasad Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.]. 3.4 Mr. Chatterjee prayed for setting aside of the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the award dated October 12, 1982.;