JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Z. Mukit, the learned Standing Counsel, Public Works Department (Roads). 2. Considering the controversy raised in the instant writ proceeding, the matter is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. 3. The petitioner on certain allegation of misappropriation was proceeded with the departmental proceeding against him. The Inquiry Officer upon conclusion of the inquiry submitted his report on 20.02.2001 (Annexure-5) to the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (Roads). The inquiry report was to the effect that the charges No.1 and 3 against the petitioner could not be proved and it was recommended that the same be dropped. So far as the charge No.2 is concerned, the responsibility of the petitioner could not be ascertained until the inquiry against the other superiors were concluded. Nevertheless, the disciplinary authority took a different view other than those of the Inquiry Officer and by doing so, the impugned order of penalty dated 17.08.2001 (Annexure-6) was imposed upon the petitioner, whereby, recovery of Rs.6,51,073/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Seventy Three) only was directed to be made from his monthly salary. The impugned penalty that was passed on 17.08.2001 was, however, modified vide office order dated 04.12.2001, whereby, the amount of deduction to be made from the petitioner’s monthly salary was reduced and quantified to Rs.1,84,833/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Three) only. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved filed his appeal before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department, on 04.10.2001 (Annexur-8) which was forwarded by the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Roads) to the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (Roads) on the same day. However, the said appeal of the petitioner having not been disposed by the respondent authority concerned, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 5. Ms. P. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the case of a similar nature this Court had given a direction to the respondent authority for disposal of the appeal within a specified time frame. 5. Ms. P. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the case of a similar nature this Court had given a direction to the respondent authority for disposal of the appeal within a specified time frame. She referred to the order dated 29.04.2013 (Annexure-10) passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5115 of 2013, whereby, this Court after perusing the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. S.S. Koshal reported in (1998) 2 SCC 648 and Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Bihari Misra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 . The learned counsel submits that the Apex Court upon coming to the conclusion that the disciplinary authority in the event of disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry to afford an opportunity to the delinquent employee before passing of penalty and therefore, even in the instant case, wherein, the facts are more or less same, the disciplinary authority after disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner before he was given the punishment. She submits that the same has been taken as one of the grounds in the appeal before the appellate authority. But, however, the appellate authority has failed to consider his appeal since it was submitted in the year 2001. She also submits that in fact the petitioner will retire on superannuation in the end of July 2017. She, therefore, submits that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the similar order that was passed on 24.09.2013 as referred earlier. 6. Mr. Z. Mukit, the learned Standing Counsel, P.W.D. (Roads), submits that he was directed to obtain instructions from the Department with regard to the status of the appeal and accordingly, he has been informed by the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (Roads) vide his communication dated 11.05.2017 that the appeal is pending with the Secretary to the Government of Assam, P.W.D. for consideration and the Chief Engineer of P.W.D. (Roads) had written to the Secretary to the Government of Assam P.W.D. on 11.05.2017, with a copy to the learned counsel wherein it was indicated that the necessary instructions with regard to the appeal be informed to the learned Standing Counsel, P.W.D. 7. Considering the prayer made by the petitioner for disposal of the petition which was filed way back in the year 2001, this Court does not consider that the writ petition be kept pending any longer and therefore, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1, Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department, to consider and dispose the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order along with the writ petition. 8. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.