-1- 2025:CGHC:10838 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8120 of 2018 Banshilal Dhargav S/o Late Rajram Dhargav Aged About 73 Years R/o Village Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Department of Home Affair (Police), Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General of Police Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Inspector General of Police Range Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent of Police, Kabirdham, District : Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05.03.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner same was Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- preferred on 08.10.2023. 10.2. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to decide the pending appeal within stipulated time. 10.3. Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector in Police Department vide order dated 01.07.1979. In the year 1993, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and punishment of stoppage of one grade increment in his current pay scale for the next six months, effective from 01.03.1994 was inflicted. The effect of this penalty will be cumulative in future increments. He would further submit that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the respondent No.1 on 08.10.2003, but till date same has not been decided; thus, he would pray that a direction may be issued to decide the pending appeal. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submission made by Mr. Ruparel. 4) Taking into consideration the fact that a departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 08.10.2003 and till date same has not been decided by the Appellate Authority, this petition at this juncture is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to make all possible endevour to conclude the proceeding of pending appeal preferably within a period of 90 -3- days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if already not concluded. 5) The respondent No.1 is also directed to communicate the final outcome of the appeal to the petitioner. 6) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this writ petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM