IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION No. 29 OF 2008 (S/B) Bhupendra Nath Shukla Ex. Dy. General Manger (SEM) S/o Late Sri S. Shukla R/o 102, Bhagirathi Apartment, 11, Old Survey Road, Dehradun. …………….. Petitioner Versus Oil and Natural Gas Commission Tel Bhavan, Dehradun Through its Chairman …………….. Respondent. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dhram Veer, J. Heard Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, leaned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to decide the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal passed on 09.01.2001, against the petitioner. 3) It appears that in the years 1980-82 some 40 lakhs over payment was made to some agent of shipping corporation by the Calcutta officer of the respondent Corporation. The petitioner was employee of the respondent Corporation. An enquiry was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and some other employees. Challenging the same the petitioner earlier filed a Civil Suit No. 120 of 1985, before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun, and got the proceedings stayed. Meanwhile, he got superannuated from service w.e.f 30th April 1985. It appears that said suit was dismissed on 17.11.1999, as the same was not maintainable. Thereafter, vide order dated 09.01.2001, after conclusion of the departmental enquiry punishment was awarded to the petitioner holding that he stands dismissed from service w.e.f. 30.03.1985. The petitioner thereafter filed the appeal, as provided under the rules applicable to the employee’s of the respondent Corporation. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal is pending for last more than seven years. 5) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the paper on record, we think it just and proper to dispose of this writ petition summarily directing the respondent to see that the appeal filed by the petitioner is disposed of (if the same is not already decided) as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months, provided no hindrance is caused by the petitioner himself. (Interim Relief Application No. 1101 of 2008 also stands dismissed, accordingly). (Dhram Veer, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 11.03.2008 11.03.2008 H.Negi