IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16410 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 13th September, 2010. Rajeev Kumar Petitioner through Mr. BPS Virk, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. KDS Sidhu, Dy. AG, Punjab. Mr. Brijeshwar Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on contract basis in the respondent Corporation. He allegedly caused an accident on 11.4.2005 which resulted into the death of a motor cyclist. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal having held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, awarded compensation of about Rs. 10 lacs to the dependents of the deceased. The Corporation meanwhile terminated the petitioner's services vide order dated 16.03.2006 after serving him with a show cause notice. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation against the order of termination of his services. Awaiting decision in the appeal, he has approached this Court. Though, the respondents have filed their reply/affidavit defending their action of terminating the services of the petitioner's service. However, the fact of the matter is that the Appellate Authority is yet to apply its mind and decide the pending appeal. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority-cum-Chairman of the Corporation to consider and decide the pending appeal of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to him within a period of three months. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the contentions before the Appellate Authority who shall consider the same in accordance with law. Disposed of. Dasti. September 13, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE