JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment dated 11.12.2013, passed in CWP No. 6514 of 2010 and order dated 18.7.2014, passed in CMP No. 10621 of 2014 in the said CWP, whereby the application for extension of time came to be rejected, for short “the impugned judgment and order”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. It appears that writ petitioner Amar Dutt Sharma filed Civil Writ Petition No.6514 of 2014, titled Amar Dutt Sharma, versus Horticultural Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Ltd., for the grant of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to release all the retiral benefits, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 3. Precisely, the case of the writ petitioner was that the writ-respondent without any lawful cause has withheld the service benefits of the writ petitioner. 4. Writ respondent has filed the reply and contested the writ petition on the grounds that the writ petitioner was Incharge of Scunderabad Branch of the Corporation. He misappropriated the funds about Rs.8.26 lacs resulting into lodging of FIR against him, which culminated into final report by the police against him and also the departmental proceedings were drawn, which were stayed on his request and that was the reason for stoppage of leave encashment and others dues. 5. Gratuity was released in favour of the writ petitioner, in terms of interim order made by this Court on 19.10.2010 in CWP No. 6514 of 2010. 6. The criminal case was disposed of by the learned Special Judge, Forest Shimla resulting into his acquittal and writ respondent prayed that it be permitted to go ahead with the departmental inquiry for the recovery of loss, which was caused by the writ petitioner. 7. The Writ Court, after examining the pleadings and the law applicable, granted six months’ time to the department-appellant herein to conclude the departmental inquiry, vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2013, subject matter of this appeal. 8. In fact, the respondent had not made any progress in the departmental inquiry, constraining them to file application CMP No. 10621 of 2014 dated 24.6.2014, after the expiry of time frame granted by this Court. 9. The learned Single Judge, after examining the application, dismissed the same, vide order dated 18.7.2014, which is also subject matter of this appeal. 10. In fact, the respondent had not made any progress in the departmental inquiry, constraining them to file application CMP No. 10621 of 2014 dated 24.6.2014, after the expiry of time frame granted by this Court. 9. The learned Single Judge, after examining the application, dismissed the same, vide order dated 18.7.2014, which is also subject matter of this appeal. 10. Neither the writ petitioner nor the writ respondent have questioned the main judgment, i.e., the judgment passed in the writ petition. Thus, it has attained the finality. The appellant has questioned the same only after noticing that the extension was not granted vide order dated 18.7.2014. In fact, the said judgment was not against the department/appellant but was against the writ petitioner/respondent herein. 11. It is worthwhile to mention herein that the writ petitioner came to be acquitted on 28.2.2011 and the State has not questioned the said judgment, has attained finality. 12. Six months’ time was granted to the appellant to conclude the departmental inquiry despite the fact that the writ petitioner had already retired and without taking any steps to conclude the inquiry had sought extension of time, that too, after the expiry of time frame, as discussed hereinabove. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated at the Bar that no progress has been made in the departmental inquiry right from the date of the impugned judgment till today. Around two years have elapsed. The learned counsel for the appellant was asked to cause appearance of the officer concerned, who appeared before the Court after lunch session. He stated that they have not made any progress in the departmental inquiry and were not in a position to conclude the same. 14. Keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove, it is the writ petitioner who has suffered, is suffering and has faced trial right from 1995 and was dragged from pillar to post and post to pillar. 15. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of this appeal by providing that all the withheld service benefits be released in favour of the writ petitioner within three months from today. Ordered accordingly. 16. Having said so, the appeal is disposed of, as indicated hereinabove, alongwith pending applications, if any.