WA 267/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R.SARMA (Ansari,J) Heard Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant. Aggrieved by the order, dated 30.9.2003, whereby the present appellant was dismi ssed from service by the respondent Bank on the charge of misappropriation of Rs .1,28,500/-, the appellant had filed a writ petition, under Article 226 of the C onstitution of India, which gave rise to WP(C) No.3609 of 2008. The writ petitio n was dismissed, on 10.6.2010, by a learned Single Judge of this Court by taking the view that a departmental proceeding was conducted against the appellant and as a result of the findings of guilt recorded in the departmental proceeding, d ismissed from service. Though the appellant had taken the plea that he had been suffering from mental imbalance from 01.10.2002 to 30.7.2008 and he had been und er the treatment of a Kabiraj, the learned Single Judge did not find any substan ce in the contention of the appellant and took the view that the appellant had b een given sufficient opportunity and the enquiry had been conducted by observing the principles of natural justice and the requirements of law. With the finding s so reached, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. We do no t find any infirmity, legal or factual, in the reasons assigned by the learned S ingle Judge in taking the view as indicated hereinbefore. Appearing, however, on behalf of the appellant, Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel, submits that the appellant has sufficient materials to show that he was not ful ly sane during the period aforementioned i.e. 01.10.2002 to 30.7.2008. While dea ling with the submission so made on behalf of the appellant, it needs to be note d that the question as to whether the appellant had or had not been suffering fr om mental illness, as claimed by him, during the period aforementioned, is a que stion of fact and determination of such a question of fact would require holding of roving enquiry and recording of evidence, which is neither desirable nor war ranted in a case of present nature. Viewed in this light, it becomes clear that the learned Single Judge’s decision not to interfere with the order of dismissal passed against the appellant cannot be faulted with. Confronted with the situation, as indicated above, Mr. Hussain, learned counsel, submits that the appellant would, now, institute a suit for the purpose of seek ing appropriate declaration in the matter, particularly, with regard to the fact that he was mentally ill during the period aforementioned and on this ground, t he appellant, it is submitted, does not want to press this appeal and seeks to w ithdraw the same. In view of what have been indicated above and in the interest of justice, this a ppeal is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty granted to the appellant to insti tute such suit as may be permissible in law. While instituting the suit, as indi cated hereinbefore, the appellant may explain the bona fide reasons, if any, whi ch may entitle him to institute the suit beyond the prescribed period of limitat ion.