Md. Nizamuddin, J. - (1.) Heard learned Advocates appearing for the Parties.
(2.) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 30th January, 2013 passed by the respondents/authorities concerned.
(3.) It appears from an earlier order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in FMA No. 1085 of 2009 dated 1st March, 2011 filed by the petitioner herein against the same charge-sheet and initiation of disciplinary proceeding. Some of the relevant portions of the said judgment which would reflect the background of this case are as follows: "................There is a chequered history of this case. Initially the petitioner assailed the order of the disciplinary authority confirmed by the appellate authority, in the writ application, being W.P. 18187(W) of 2005. By the judgement and order dated 11th August, 2006 Tapen Sen, J. allowed the writ application to the extent of quashing the impugned order passed by the appellate authority as well as disciplinary authority and remanded the matter back for consideration of the issue by the 14 disciplinary authority afresh in accordance with law. In the said judgement, the question of bias against the Enquiry Officer, as was pleaded in the writ application, was rejected by holding, inter alia, that the Enquiry officer was not biased. Liberty granted to challenge the report of the Enquiry officer on other points. The disciplinary authority after taking note of the report of the Enquiry Officer, passed an order of punishment on complying with the necessary formalities of issuance of show cause notice. Challenging the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, a fresh writ application was moved. The judgement as passed therein is the subject matter of challenge before us. It is settled legal position of law that the judicial review of any disciplinary proceeding could be done if it is a case of breach of natural justice or breach of the statutory provision of law, but no writ is maintainable, assailing the factual findings of the Enquiry Officer vis- -vis the charge and other co-related documents as relied upon by the Enquiry Officer and also by the disciplinary authority. Domain to consider the factual matrix of the issue as to whether Enquiry Officer came to a proper finding and thereafter the disciplinary authority whether was justified to pass any order of punishment in disciplinary proceeding on said factual parameters, is the appellate authority under the statute. The writ application as filed earlier for the breach of natural justice and for breach of statutory rules and regulations, as already observed, was 15 considered by the learned trial Judge, by holding, inter alia, that there was no such breach of the principle of natural justice and no breach of any statutory rules and regulations. It appears from the records that though initially when the charge memo was served, the delinquent could not submit his show cause due to fact that relevant documents allegedly were not supplied by the employer, but subsequently when the proceeding actually initiated, all documents were served except three documents out of total 53 documents and written brief was submitted by the delinquent before the Presiding Officer. He participated in the disciplinary proceeding, crossexamined witnesses and placed his documentary evidence. Those points have been discussed by the learned trial Judge in the judgement under appeal. Having regard to such, the learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that there was no breach of natural justice. We are also not finding any merit in the submission made by the appellant, assailing the order of the learned trial Judge, before us on the point that there was breach of natural justice in the departmental proceeding which culminated to an order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. On that score, we are not entertaining the appeal, but since the factual matrix of the case, namely, whether on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, disciplinary authority was justified to impose punishment, would be only considered by the appellate 16 authority in statutory appeal, we are allowing that point for adjudication in the event appeal is preferred by the delinquent for which he is granted liberty to file appeal. It is made clear that in the event any appeal is filed within a month from this date, delay in filing the appeal to be condoned by the appellate authority and appeal to be considered upon hearing the writ petitioner/appellant/delinquent. It is expected that the said statutory appeal to be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of submission of the appeal. It is made clear that the question of breach of natural justice having been adjudicated by us, the appellate authority will not decide that question further. So far as the breach of natural justice is concerned, we are of the view that there was no breach of natural justice. Learned Advocate for the appellant practically in this appeal intended to consider the factual matrix regarding the findings of the Enquiry Officer vis- -vis the charge memo and the deposition as made by the defence and the documents as placed and relied upon. We are not inclined to decide that question in the writ jurisdiction. As already observed, that point to be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law.".......................;