appellant-petitioner procrastinated the matter from the date of suspension till 05.03.1987. Thereafter, he requested the authorities to supply documents to file reply to the show cause notice. Since the appellant-petitioner has failed to file reply, based on the available material, the dismissal order has been passed. Against the dismissal order, the appellant-petitioner has preferred a departmental appeal and when it was not decided by the authorities concerned, he filed Writ Petition No. 2042 (SS) of 1999 wherein while disposing of the writ petition on 07.05.1999, this Court directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner expeditiously. The Appellate Authority has passed the order wherein he has stated that enough opportunity was given to the appellantpetitioner, who in turn has not availed and on one pretext or the other, the appellant-petitioner kept asking for further time to linger on the procedure. Under these circumstances, the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner. Thereafter, the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed. Thus, it cannot be said that appellant-petitioner has not been given opportunity of hearing before passing of the dismissal order. More over, the pleas raised before us have already been raised before learned Single Judge and after considering the pleas so raised by him, the writ petition has been dismissed. Thus, we are of considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order.
