A. K. BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE entire disciplinary proceedings as well as the order of the disciplinary authority affirmed by the order of the appellate authority were impugned before this Court in C. O. 8225 (W) of 1987. The said writ petition was disposed of by Mahitosh Mazumdar, J. (as His Lordship then was) by a judgment and order dated 12th August, 1988. His Lordship held that the order of the appellate authority was bad in view of the rule 32 (ii) and as such gave liberty to the petitioner to file a supplementary appeal before the appellate authority and directed the appellate authority to dispose of the same in terms of the said rules. The said order of His Lordship was appealed against by the writ petitioner. The Court of appeal by an order dated 14th June, 1995 upheld the order of the learned single Judge and directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal of the writ petitioner if filed in terms of the liberty granted by the single Judge. ( 2 ) IN terms of the liberty given by this Court a supplementary appeal was preferred. The appellate authority by a reasoned order dated 24th January, 1996 rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The order of the appellate authority appearing at pages 212 to 214 of the writ petition has been impugned before me. ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH several grounds have been taken and points have been agitated by the writ petitioner attacking the proceedings as well as the order of the disciplinary authority, in my view, the scope of this application has been narrowed down in view of the finality reached to the said effect in the earlier writ proceedings. I am only to examine as to whether the appellate authority has disposed of the appeal in terms of the direction of this Court given earlier. ( 4 ) IN this backdrop I have examined the order of the appellate authority. The appellate authority while considering the report of the hand-writing expert submitted by the petitioner, has made elaborate discussion raising point of difference and ultimately rejected the said report and held the writ petitioner guilty of the charges and rejected the concerned appeal. ( 4 ) IN this backdrop I have examined the order of the appellate authority. The appellate authority while considering the report of the hand-writing expert submitted by the petitioner, has made elaborate discussion raising point of difference and ultimately rejected the said report and held the writ petitioner guilty of the charges and rejected the concerned appeal. Since the issue involved herein solely depends on the fact as to whether the signature appearing in two subject gate passes are of the writ petitioners or not and since there has been categorical denial made by the writ petitioner in his written submission the only course left open to the respondents was to have the said signature examined by an appropriate authority having expertise on the same. The respondent authority has not done so. Before the authority when an expert report was produced by the writ petitioner the appellate authority should have obtained a second opinion on the same before attempting to contradict the said report without having any expertise on the same. Hence, I hold that the appellate authority committed grave illegality in considering the report of the hand-writing expert by disagreeing with the same without having a second opinion from another expert. The order of the appellate authority is thus quashed and set aside. ( 5 ) THE writ petitioner is present in Court. He has made full signature in a piece of paper duly countersigned by the respective advocates of the parties. The said sheet of paper containing the signature of the writ petitioner be sent to the respondent-authorities in a closed envelope. The respondent authority is directed to send the said closed envelope along with two subject gate passes to the Central Forensic Laboratory, 13, Gorachand Road, for their opinion. The said Forensic Institute would submit a report to the respondent appellate authority and the appellate authority upon receipt of the said report would consider the appeal of the writ petitioner afresh upon giving him a personal hearing and by a reasoned order to be passed. The entire process must be done as early as possible and must be completed within a period of 12 weeks from date. The writ petition is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. ( 6 ) THE writ petitioner was dismissed from service in 1986. Since then he is out of employment. The entire process must be done as early as possible and must be completed within a period of 12 weeks from date. The writ petition is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. ( 6 ) THE writ petitioner was dismissed from service in 1986. Since then he is out of employment. He had made a representation before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 18th May, 2000, inter alia, praying for early hearing of this matter. Considering such fact. I gave priority and placed the matter in the supplementary list. Even then the learned advocate for the writ petitioner was not present to represent the writ petitioner. In such view of the matter on 29th April, 2002, I requested Mrs. Ajeya Mitra, learned advocate, to assist this Court on behalf of the petitioner. This Court records its appreciation for the contribution made by Mrs. Mitra in this regard. ( 7 ) LET xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates appearing for the parties. Petition disposed of.