JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the enquiry report dated 13.09.2013 whereby the petitioner has been held to be an imposter and for direction upon the respondents to make payment of entire monetary benefit/consequential benefit by granting continuity in service as per direction of Hon'ble Court passed in L.P.A. No. 33 of 2010. 2. Challenging the office order dated 25.01.2006 whereby respondents served notice of superannuation upon the petitioner, the petitioner initially moved this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 2501 of 2006, which was disposed of by quashing the impugned office order dated 25.01.2006. Aggrieved whereof, the respondents preferred appeal by filing L.P.A. No. 33 of 2010 taking a specific ground of impersonation against the petitioner. The said L.P.A was dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2013 with direction to respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits. However, liberty was reserved with the respondents-Management to proceed against the petitioner by conducting a fresh enquiry. Against the order passed by Division Bench of this Court, the respondents preferred S.L.P., however, the same was withdrawn on 05.08.2013. It is averred that for noncompliance of order of Hon'ble Court for reinstatement, the petitioner preferred Cont. Case (C) No. 846 of 2011, but, during the pendency of the contempt application, the respondents-authority concluded the enquiry in haste giving its finding that the petitioner is an imposter as he failed to prove that his father's name is Jugal Mochi vide its report dated 13.09.2013, which is impugned in this case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, in his service record, the name of his father has been mentioned as Jugal Mochi, who was also known as Jugnu. It has been submitted that even the respondents-Management has acknowledged the fact that the name of his father is Jugnu, as is evident from Mines Vocational Training Certificate dated 13.10.2001 and Identity Card issued as far back as in the year 1990 wherein the name of the petitioner has been stated as Jugnu Ahirwar. Further, the petitioner has sworn an affidavit in the year 1989 showing his father's name as Jugal Ahirwar but as he was also known as Jugnu Ahirwar, accordingly, in the ration card and pan card, the name of the father of the petitioner has been indicated as Jugnu Ahirwar. Further, the petitioner has sworn an affidavit in the year 1989 showing his father's name as Jugal Ahirwar but as he was also known as Jugnu Ahirwar, accordingly, in the ration card and pan card, the name of the father of the petitioner has been indicated as Jugnu Ahirwar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry has been conducted in hot haste and only to save the skin from the proceeding of Contempt application, wherein the Hon'ble Court directed the respondents-authorities to remain physically present for non-compliance of order passed in W.P. (S) No. 2501 of 2006, departmental proceeding was concluded in a very haste manner. It has been submitted that in the enquiry no opportunity for placing the case of the petitioner has been afforded to the petitioner rendering the enquiry report non-est in the eye of law. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the basis of date of birth mentioned in pay-slip and Non-Execution Information System Record as 01.01.1947, notice of superannuation dated 25.01.2006 was served upon the petitioner as he was to retire on 31.12.2006. Petitioner contending his date of birth as 03.05.1955 preferred W.P. (S) No.2501 of 2006, in which, counter affidavit was filed by the respondents stating that petitioner is an imposter. However, the writ petition was allowed. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred L.P.A. No. 33 of 2010, which was disposed of with liberty to the respondents to initiate proceeding against the petitioner on the allegation of imposter. In view of the order passed in L.P.A. No. 33 of 2010, enquiry was conducted by a Committee comprising three official against the petitioner wherein the petitioner appeared and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend his case. It has further been submitted that in the meantime, the respondents-Management moved before Hon'ble Apex Court by filing S.L.P (C) No. 13547 of 2013, in which, the conducting lawyer informed via e-mail that as per opinion of the Hon'ble Court, respondents must complete the enquiry first, however, permitted the appellant-Management to withdraw the S.L.P and to complete the departmental enquriy and only thereafter challenge the impugned order. It has been submitted that thereafter investigation/enquiry was completed and the committee submitted its report dated 13.09.2013 to the effect that the petitioner is an “imposter” and the said report was filed before this Court in Cont. It has been submitted that thereafter investigation/enquiry was completed and the committee submitted its report dated 13.09.2013 to the effect that the petitioner is an “imposter” and the said report was filed before this Court in Cont. Case by way of filing supplementary affidavit on 18.09.2013. It has further been submitted that the said enquiry report has also been forwarded to the panel lawyer of CCL in Hon'ble Apex Court and the same has been filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing Interlocutory Application with a prayer to drop the contempt proceeding against the management. It has further been submitted that petitioner has also filed Cont Case (C) No. 76 of 2014, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned enquiry report dated 13.09.2015 was under adjudication in Cont. Case No. 846 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.03.2016 with an observation that as on today there is no deliberate breach by the opposite parties. It has further been submitted that impugned report dated 13.09.2015 is under adjudication before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the I.A. Petitioner, as such any interference of this Hon'ble Court is unwarranted. 5. Before adverting to merit of the case, it would be apposite to quote the relevant paragraph of L.P.A. No. 33 of 2010: 5. We are of the considered opinion that if there is allegation against the petitioner of the nature referred above then in that situation, two separate issues were there; (i)whether petitioner was impostor and (ii) whether the date of birth of the employee was 3.05.1955 or not ? For both these issues, the management did not hold any enquiry and proceeded to pass impugned order which was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. Both the issues are separate and independent. If the petitioner was impostor then the issue of date of birth of the original employee was not at all relevant and if the petitioner was not impostor then the issue of date of birth could have been the relevant issue for superannuating the petitioner. Therefore, the management without deciding the core issue, whether the petitioner is an impostor, proceeded to ignore the date of birth recorded in the Form 'B' register and mixed up both issues. 6. Therefore, the management without deciding the core issue, whether the petitioner is an impostor, proceeded to ignore the date of birth recorded in the Form 'B' register and mixed up both issues. 6. Be that as it may be, the order of superannuation of the petitioner was rightly not sustained and has rightly been quashed. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this L.P.A. However, it is made clear that if the management thinks to proceed against the petitioner to enquire about any allegation, the management will be free to do so and the petitioner will be free to take all objections in the enquiry, if any, to be conducted against the petitioner. 7. With the above observations and directions, this L.P.A is dismissed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith with consequential benefits. (Own emphasis) 6. With the liberty aforesaid, the respondents-authorities decided to proceed departmentally against the petitioner. On perusal of the records, it is quite evident that there has been no procedural irregularity from the initiation of disciplinary proceeding till its culmination whereby the petitioner has been held to be an imposter vide enquiry report dated 13.09.2013 and allegation levelled against the petitioner has been found to be proved by the enquiry officer. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs Raj Kishore Yadav and Another as reported in (2006) 5 SCC 673 at paragraph 4 has held that: “4. ........ It is a settled law that the High Court has limited scope of interference in the administrative action of the State in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and, therefore, the findings recorded by the enquriy officer and the consequent order of punishment of dismissal from service should not be disturbed..........”. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and Another as reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 has held that High Court under Article 226 cannot disturb the facts and findings given by the disciplinary authority. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and Another as reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178 has held that High Court under Article 226 cannot disturb the facts and findings given by the disciplinary authority. 7. On the other hand, in spite of the direction given in W.P. (S) No. 2501 of 2006 dated 16.11.2009 and in L.P.A. No. 33 of 2010 to reinstate the petitioner services, when the petitioner was not reinstated in services the petitioner filed Contempt Case for noncompliance of the order passed in aforesaid cases, but the same was dropped taking into account that enquiry report has been submitted against the petitioner and observing that as on today there is no deliberate breach by the opposite parties of the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 2501 of 2006 dated 16.11.2009. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements and in view of the fact that there has been no procedural irregularity and the petitioner has been found guilty by the enquiry officer and opined that the petitioner is an “imposter”, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case which warrants any interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.