WP(C) 3006/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard Mr DM Thakuria, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs VL Singh, t he learned state counsel appearing for the State respondents. Seemingly, the petitioner is aggrieved by non-consideration of his repre sentation dated 07.09.2008, which is at Annexure-4, for reinstating him to his f ormer post following his acquittal from a criminal case by this Court in Crimina l Appeal No.386/2002. On going through the Anenxure-4, I am of the view that the disciplinary authority has rightly ignored his representation, which is lacking in details or materials particulars. I have pointedly read out the contents of the Annexure-4 for the benefit of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under the circumstances, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the disciplinary authority for reinstatement to his former post can not be passed by this Court. Confronted with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be allowed to with draw this w rit petition with a liberty to approach the Chief Executive Officer, Darrang Zil a Parishad for reinstatement to his former post on the basis of the acquittal or der passed by this Court. As and when such representation is received by the Chi ef Executive Officer, Darrang Zila Parishad, the same shall be considered and di sposed of by him in accordance with law within a period of two months. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the decision taken by the Chief Executive Officer, Darrang Zila Parishad, he is at liberty to approach this Cour t again for appropriate directions. No costs.