JUDGMENT D. Biswas, J. 1. The petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the Assam Financial Corporation. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him for unauthorized absence from duty in the year 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994. Initially, the then Secretary, Shri Safidur Rahman was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, he was replaced by Shri B.K. Baruah. The petitioner was imposed with the penalty of dismissal on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by Shri B.K. Baruah. This petition has been filed challenging the appointment of Shri B.K. Baruah and imposition of penalty of dismissal and the rejection of the appeal by the respondent authority. 2. I have heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.S. Rahman, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and also Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. T. Goswami, learned counsel for the Respondent authority. 3. It is submitted by Shri Mazumdar, learned senior counsel that the first Inquiry Report submitted by Shri Safidur Rahman on 27.12.1996 exonerating the writ petitioner could not be obliterated and, therefore, imposition of penalty of dismissal could not be ordered on the basis of the second inquiry report. Shri Mazumdar further submitted that the penalty of dismissal imposed with retrospective effect, i.e., 3.1.1997 is highly disproportionate to the offence alleged to have been committed by the writ petitioner. 4. Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the respondent authority submitted that the petitioner was absence from duty without authority for a period of 113 days in 1991, 195 days in 1992, 346 days in 1993, 365 days in 1994, 365 days in 1995 and 126 days in 1996. According to Shri Goswami, an enquiry was initially ordered and Shri Rahman, the then Secretary was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. But Shri Rahman failed to complete the enquiry and he returned the papers. In support of this contention, Shri B. K. Goswami also produced the official file containing the note sheet written by Shri Rahman. Shri Goswami further submitted that Shri Baruah was appointed on 9.4.1997 and his appointment was questioned in C.R. No. 1798/97. This Court by the Order dated 7.3.1998 dismissed the petition and, therefore, the appointment of Shri Baruah as Enquiry Officer cannot be questioned. The petitioner has challenged the penalty of dismissal only on the ground that the appointment of Shri Baruah is not valid. This Court by the Order dated 7.3.1998 dismissed the petition and, therefore, the appointment of Shri Baruah as Enquiry Officer cannot be questioned. The petitioner has challenged the penalty of dismissal only on the ground that the appointment of Shri Baruah is not valid. Shri Goswami, learned senior counsel submitted that legality and validity of appointment of Shri Baruah has been settled by this Court in Civil Rule No. 1798 of 1995 and, therefore, the same cannot be reopened. 5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Civil Rule No. 1798 of 1995 with the following observation : "3. Earlier on 9.5.1996 a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner on certain charges. One Shri S. Rahman, Secretary, Assam Financial Corporation was appointed as the enquiry officer. The petitioner replied to the notice of show cause and, thereafter, the enquiry officer fixed the dates such as 31.10.1996, 8.11.1996 and 16.1.1997. No body was examined before the earlier enquiry officer, in the meantime, on 3rd January, 1997 the Assam Financial Corporation Staff Regulation (Amendment) 1997xame into force and by virtue of that amendment earlier Rule 41, which was made compulsory/mandatory that the Managing Director with the approval of the Board, shall appoint such person otherwise no way involved with the Corporation's affair being sufficient administrative background and experienced on a highly placed position, to be an Enquiry Officer to make enquiry on any departmental proceeding drawn against any of the officials of the Corporation wherever deem fit and proper. In view of this amendment to the Rule 41 the earlier enquiry officer Sri S.I. Rahman, who himself was the Secretary of the Corporation passed an order that in view of the amendment of the Rule he is no longer power to hold the enquiry and placed the matter before the authority and after than as indicated above, Shri Baruah was appointed as the enquiry officer and he conducted the enquiry and submitted the report. 4. That being the position, there is no infirmity and/or illegality on this count, i.e., inquiry conducted by Shri Baruah." It is, therefore, clear that the legality and validity of appointment of Shri Baruah as Enquiry Officer cannot be reviewed by this Court. 6. The next question is whether Shri Safidur Rahman had filed any report exonerating the writ petitioner. The petitioner has produced the original report submitted by Shri Rahman, the first Enquiry Officer. 6. The next question is whether Shri Safidur Rahman had filed any report exonerating the writ petitioner. The petitioner has produced the original report submitted by Shri Rahman, the first Enquiry Officer. This report was not available in the office file. The report shows that the Enquiry Officer exonerated the writ petitioner of the charges. In normal course, tills report should have been in the office file. The petitioner could not explain satisfactorily as to how it has come to his custody. Annexures-D1, D2 and D3, the certificates allegedly issued by Shri Rahman, indicate that he had to write the orders in the note sheet to the effect that he was, returning the papers without completing the proceedings because of threat and force applied by the Corporation officials. These matters were never agitated by Shri Rahman while he was in service. Long after his retirement, and during the pendency of tins petition, the aforesaid certificates have been issued in order to show that he had submitted a report on completion of enquiry absolving the writ petitioner of the charges. The respondent authority in their additional affidavit categorically disowned the documents as fabricated and forged, and submitted that there was no occasion for any official of the Corporation to exert any force upon Shri Rahman to write on the note sheets that he returned the file of the departmental proceeding. 7. This Court finds no reason but to act upon the official file produced during the course of argument. From this file it is apparent that Shri Rahman returned the papers of the proceedings with the observation that he was not in a position to proceed with the enquiry because of change in the relevant rules. The orders dated 31.10.1996, 8.11.1996 and 10.1.1997 are quoted below : "31.10.1996 Steps taken to inform Shri Abdul Matlib, Sr. Assist, H. O. AFC, Gauhati to appear before me on 7.11.1996 with all original testimonials, etc., in support of his submission. Sd/- Safidur Rahman 31.10.1996 8.11.1996 Record put up today. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the proceedings could not be taken up yesterday. The D/o appeared, today in my chamber. As I am very busy otherwise in connection with Board and other officials matters conveyed the D/o to appear on 16.1.1997. Sd/- Safidur Rahman 31.10.1996 8.11.1996 Record put up today. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the proceedings could not be taken up yesterday. The D/o appeared, today in my chamber. As I am very busy otherwise in connection with Board and other officials matters conveyed the D/o to appear on 16.1.1997. Sd/- Safidur Rahman 8.11.1996 10.1.1997 Could not proceed with to complete the enquiry in view of the amendment of the Regulation 41 of the A.F.C. Staff Regulation, 1957 where a person with no way involved with the Corporations affairs, be an Enquiry officer to conduct Departmental enquiry. The concern File returned to the Admn. Section for needful action. Sd/- Safidur Rahman 10.1.1997." 8. In between two sets of documents, i.e., Annexures-D1, D2 and D3 and the note sheets in the office the, reliance has to be placed on the later. That apart, the writ petitioner while challenging the appointment of Shri Baruah as second Enquiry Officer in Civil Rule No. 1798 of 1995 did not plead that Shri Rahman completed the enquiry and submitted report exonerating him. This shows that the report allegedly submitted by Shri Rahman and the certificates (Annexures-D1, D2 and D3) have been manufactured after retirement of Shri Rahmah. 9. The conduct of the writ petitioner and the charges of unauthorized absence for a long period, in the given circumstances of the case, do not warrant interference by this Court with the penalty of dismissal. It may be mentioned here that the writ petitioner has challenged the penalty only on the ground that the appointment of Shri Baruah, the second Enquiry Officer is invalid since Shri Rahman, the first enquiry Officer already completed the enquiry and submitted report. 10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Cost easy. Petition dismissed.