IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt Petition No. 233 of 2009 Bhupendra Nath Shukla, Ex. Dy. General Manager (SEM), S/O Late Sri S.Shukla, R/O 102, Bhagirathi Apartment, 11- Old Survey Road, Dehradun …… Petitioner. Versus Sh. R.S.Sharma, C.M.D., Oil and Natural Gas Tel Bhawan, Dehradun. … Respondent. Mr. Mohd. Matlub, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. B.P.Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Date July 13, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to punish the respondent for deliberate and intentional flouting the order dated 11-3-2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 29 of 2008 (SB) whereby this Court directed the respondent to see that the appeal filed by the petitioner is disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months, provided no hindrance is caused by the petitioner himself. On behalf of the respondent, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed along with delay condonation application. By order dated 22-10-2009, the delay was condoned and the counter affidavit was taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner was granted four weeks’ time to file rejoinder affidavit, but no rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. I have perused the averments made in the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, the respondent has given satisfactory explanation leading to the pendency of the appeal. Along with the counter affidavit, the respondent has annexed extract of minutes of 195th Meeting of the Board of Directors of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited held on 28th August 2009 pertaining to the appeal of Shri B.N.Shukla. In para 12 of the counter affidavit, it is specifically mentioned that the Appellate 2 Authority against the penalty imposed by Chairman and Managing Director (as Disciplinary Authority) is the Board of Directors. It is not disputed that the penalty in the disciplinary proceeding was imposed against the petitioner by the then Chairman by order dated 9-1-2001 against which the appeal was preferred by the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention that even after filing of the counter affidavit, which was taken on record on 22-10-2009, the petitioner neither filed his rejoinder affidavit nor has taken any steps to seek modification of the order dated 11-3-2008 or to implead the appropriate authority competent to decide the departmental appeal in the contempt petition. Having gone through the entire material placed before the Court, I am of the view that delay in disposal of departmental appeal by the respondent is neither intentional nor deliberate in any manner. Moreover, since the averments made in the counter affidavit have not been controverted by the petitioner, by filing his rejoinder affidavit till now, no case of contempt is made out at all against the respondent. The contempt petition is dismissed. Notice issued to the respondents is discharged. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP