Biswanath Somadder, J. - (1.) The present review is in respect of a judgment and order dated 18th December, 2017, passed by us in MAT 1251 of 2017 with CAN 8202 of 2017 (Dipak Chatterjee vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). By the said judgment and order, an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal along with the application for stay stood dismissed for reasons stated therein. Relevant portion of the said judgment and order is quoted hereinbelow:- "It may be observed at this stage that the learned Single Judge in its impugned judgement and order has taken into consideration all the issues relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the case of the appellant/writ petitioner including the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner did not challenge the Rules which govern the disciplinary proceedings. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner had pleaded guilty in respect of each and every charge before the Enquiry Officer "in black and white".
(2.) Further, the learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner had also accepted his liabilities in respect of each and every charge before the Enquiry Officer and, accordingly, he was found guilty of the charges. After considering the entire service record of the appellant/writ petitioner, it was resolved that the decision taken by the Board on 19th July, 2013, regarding his dismissal was completely in accordance with law and the statutory appeal was dismissed. All these relevant factors having been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge before proceeding to dismiss the writ petition.
(3.) In an Intra-Court Mandamus Appeal no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed. On a plain reading of the impugned judgement and order, no such palpable infirmities and perversities are noticed which would warrant any interference.;