C.W.P. No. 3375 of 2009 Sudesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others Present: Mr. Jagmohan Ghumman, Advocate for the petitioner. *** The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointing authority of the petitioner was DIG but the order of his dismissal was passed by the Superintendent of Police. The allegations were that the petitioner had demanded and accepted a bribe from a Japanese National for extension of visa. Initially the petitioner was dismissed after holding of the preliminary inquiry but he said order was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the petitioner was reinstated in service. Thereafter regular inquiry was ordered against the petitioner wherein he was found guilty of the misconduct charged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised no arguments on the merits of the case but has confined himself only to the argument with regard to the jurisdiction of the dismissing authority. In my opinion this can be disposed of at this stage without going into the merits by directing the respondent No.2 to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner which is stated to be pending since 9.9.2007 by passing a speaking order thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 04, 2009 sunita