JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner. 2. By the impugned order dated 8.9.2010 learned writ court has allowed CWJC No. 8945/2002* and held that findings by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority had been recorded without considering relevant materials and explanations offered by the delinquent employee and that he had not been given adequate opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry because he had asked for time and there is no material to show that the notice regarding the next date fixed as 6.7.1998 was ever served upon him and as per pleadings the writ petitioner was ill and under treatment. 3. On behalf of appellants, it has been strenuously submitted that the writ court has committed an error in going into facts of the case in detailed manner as if the exercise was under appellate jurisdiction. No doubt the discussions made in paragraphs 12 to 14, prima facie, create such an impression but learned counsel for the writ petitioner appears to be correct that the necessity arose on account of peculiar facts which raised suspicion that the authorities were acting mala fide or in perverse manner. It is not in dispute that at the time when a fire broke out in the branch of the concerned bank the writ petitioner was on leave and the branch had functioned for few days in between his proceeding on leave and the incident of fire. 4. On going through the enquiry report, it is evident that only on the basis of disputed reports some of the charges have been held to be proved although not a single witness was examined in the enquiry and there is no material to show that the writ petitioner was in any way involved with the incident of fire. Even the police investigation ended with a report that no proof cou|d be found. 5. It is also apparent from the records that almost for the same charges earlier the writ petitioner was punished with stoppage of two increments for two years only on the basis of his show cause and when that order was quashed by the High Court with liberty to the authorities that they may proceed afresh, after holding an enquiry noticed above, the writ petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal from service. It is also not in dispute that he superannuated from service on attending (sicattaining?) age of superannuation on 5.1.2008. In that view of matter and considering peculiar facts of the case and hardship faced by the writ petitioner for sustained proceeding since incident of fire in the year 1987, the writ court found that the matter should be given a decent burial and did not remand the matter for holding a fresh enquiry. 6. In the facts of the case, we do not find any good reason to interfere in the matter. The appeal is dismissed.