WP(C) 1853/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. L. P. Sharma, learned counsel representing the Corporation. I have also heard Mr. M ahanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2011 by which he was reduce d in rank to the post of Peon from that of LDC. The plea of the petitioner is th at since he was initially appointed as LDC, could not have been reverted to the lower post of Peon. The petitioner has also challenged the entire enquiry proce eding on the basis of which the impugned order of penalty has been passed. Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would li ke to prefer a departmental appeal against the impugned order of penalty to whic h Mr. L.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the Corporation does not have any objecti on. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the p etitioner to prefer a departmental appeal raising all his grievance and urging all the points as may be available in law. In the event of making such an appeal within 15 days from today, the appellate authority, i.e. the respondent Corpora tion, shall decide the same on merit taking note of all the facts and circumstan ces of the case and in accordance with law. The appeal may be disposed of as exp editiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 30.11.2011. Needless to say that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order to be passed, he may pur sue such legal remedy as may be available in law. Interim order operating in this proceeding shall continue till disposal of the a ppeal.