1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 10092 of 2008 Decided on: 5.5.2011 Kunj Lal ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 & 4. Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the inquiry report, has imposed the penalty, vide Annexure P-A, dated 5th September, 2001, upon the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order dated 5th September, 2001 before the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation vide Annexure P-F on 26th July, 2001. The same has not been decided till date. 2. In the normal circumstances, the appeal being statutory in nature, ought to have been decided by now. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Authority is directed to decide 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?. No 2 the appeal Annexure P-F, dated 26th July, 2001, preferred by the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks after production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority, while deciding the appeal, shall also advert to the grounds/pleas taken in the memorandum of the appeal by the petitioner and pass a speaking/detailed order. The petitioner shall also be heard in person. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. May 5, 2011 (hl)