IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7791 of 2008. Decided on: 25.5.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Mohan Singh. … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Ramesh Sharma, A.A.G. __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of dismissal upon the petitioner from service vide order dated 27.5.1998. He preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 27.2.1999. The Appellate Authority instead of deciding the appeal on merit, rejected the same on the ground of delay. He preferred review/revision before the Inspector General of Police. The same was also rejected on 15.2.2001. The Court is of the opinion that the appeal ought to have been decided on merit instead of dismissing the same on the ground of delay or laches. It is the case where the petitioner has been imposed the penalty of dismissal from service. He has high-lighted in the appeal that he was undergoing treatment and in fact has placed on record 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Annexure A-6 and Annexure A-7. The order of dismissal has severe civil and evil consequences upon the petitioner. He has been deprived of his livelihood. In these circumstances, it was not open to the Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal only by taking hyper technical view of limitation. It is not one of those cases where due to inordinate delay in assailing any administrative or quasi judicial order, rights of third party have intervened. He belongs to lower rung of the society. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General, however, has fairly submitted that the appeal may be permitted to be decided by the Appellate Authority on merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on its merit after taking into consideration the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeal along with medical certificates Annexures A-6 and A-7. He shall decide the appeal within eight weeks. The petitioner shall also be afforded an opportunity of being heard by the Appellate Authority. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. May 25, 2009. (cr)