2025:JHHC:18623 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 2753 of 2025 -- Dr. Sujit Kumar Parira, aged about 60 years, Son of Late Sushil Kumar Parira, Resident of Sec-04/C, Qr. No.-1069, Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, Dist.- Bokaro, Jharkhand ....Petitioner -Versus- 1. Steel Authority of India Limited through its CGM, Town Administration, Land and Estate, SAIL, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Sector 4, Dist.- Bokaro. 2. Director, In-Charge, Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL, Bokaro Steel City HQ, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Sector 4, Dist- Bokaro. 3. The Executive Director (HR), Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL, Bokaro Steel City HQ, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Sector 4, Dist.- Bokaro. 4. The General Manager, Town Administration, Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Sector 4, Dist.- Bokaro. 5. The General Manager, Projects, Bokaro Steel Plant, SAIL, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Sector 4, Dist.-Bokaro. ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Nandan Chatterjee, Advocate For the Respondents : M/s. Indrajit Sinha, Arpan Mishra, Advocates - 02/09.07.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner for the following reliefs: For a direction upon the respondents authorities especially respondent no. 2 to decide the appeal (through registered post dated 24.01.2025 and submitted in Office personally on 25.01.2025) filed by the petitioner against the minor punishment under Rule-27 of SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rule, 1997 and accordingly, it has been ordered to "reduction of one lower stage in the time scale of pay till his superannuation without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his terminal benefits.", which is in contravention of the basic purpose of SAIL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rule, 1997 and also excessive as per the allegation of misconduct/charges levelled against the petitioner. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the appeal has been filed by the Petitioner, but the same has not yet been disposed of; as 2025:JHHC:18623 2 such, a direction may be issued to the concerned Respondent to dispose of the appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents does not have any objection. He submits that a direction may be issued to the concerned Respondent to dispose of the appeal if the same has not yet been disposed of. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and looking to the prayer made in this writ application, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the 2nd Respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of 10 weeks, if the same has not yet been disposed of. For convenience, the Petitioner shall file copy of this writ application which contains the Memo of Appeal filed before the concerned Respondent. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) jk