ssp 1 WP 54 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.54 OF 2011 Sunil Ramlingam Reddy .....Petitioner versus Union of India and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Arshad Shaikh with Mr.Mahesh Londhe i/by M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for the petitioner. Mr.T.J.Pandian, for respondent No.1. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 7th FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. Leave to amend by way of challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 16-07-2009. Prayer clause to be amended accordingly during the course of the day. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges his dismissal order by which he was dismissed from service. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the impugned order of dismissal has been passed, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 16-07-2009 dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was time barred. 3. It is required to be noted that against the order of the disciplinary authority, petitioner had initially filed a Writ Petition (L) No. ssp 2 WP 54 of 2011 2428 of 2007 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26-03-2008 disposed of the aforesaid Writ Petition with a liberty to the petitioner to file appeal before the appellate authority within a period of two weeks from today. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has preferred appeal before the appellate authority within the stipulated period, however, the same was not acknowledged. In this connection, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the appeal was required to be routed through the Disciplinary Authority and it was not filed through proper channel. 4. In our view, since petitioner has already filed writ petition, which was disposed of by this Court on the ground of efficacious alternate remedy, it would be just and proper to direct the appellate authority to dispose of the pending appeal of the petitioner on merits. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appeal of the petitioner will be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 16-07-2009 passed by the appellate authority is quashed and set aside. It is directed that the appellate authority shall decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously and in any case within a period of four months from today. Learned Advocates appearing in the matter may inform this order to the appellate authority so that the appeal can be decided in a time bound programme. ssp 3 WP 54 of 2011 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that while deciding the appeal, personal hearing may be accorded to the petitioner by the appellate authority. The appellate authority may consider this request and may decide the appeal after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner may raise whatever point he wants to agitate before the appellate authority in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would like to add additional grounds in the appeal. If any additional grounds are submitted by giving additional appeal memo, the same may be permitted to be incorporated in the appeal memo. However, such additional appeal memo may be given to the appellate authority within a period of three weeks from today. The appellate authority may hear the petitioner and may pass appropriate order in appeal in accordance with law. In case the petitioner has any grievance, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law. 7. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )