JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, C.J. 1. The Appellant had filed a writ petition bearing WP (C) No. 4283/2010 in which it was prayed, inter alia, for a direction to set aside the suspension of the Petitioner by an order dated 28.9.2007 and also to quash the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him based on a show cause notice dated 17.3.2008. 2. Before the learned Single Judge, it appears mat the principal issue raised was not about his suspension but about the delay in disposal of the enquiry. The reason for this is that an appeal had been preferred by the Appellant against the order of suspension which was disposed of departmentally by a speaking order dated 3.4.2009. 3. Insofar as the departmental enquiry is concerned, it is recorded by the learned Single Judge that three notices were issued to the Appellant to appear before him, but the notices could not be served since he was absent unauthorisedly from the Head Quarter, where he was posted. Because of his continuous absence, notice was served by publication in the newspaper on 1.7.2010. 4. The learned Single Judge noted that since the Appellant has now appeared in the enquiry proceeding, it should be disposed of as early as possible. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant informs us that the enquiry is near completion inasmuch as the statements of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded. May be, the statements of all the prosecution witnesses have been recorded. 6. That being the position, we decline to entertain this writ appeal but reiterate that the departmental inquiry be disposed of expeditiously. 7. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed