‘ mu...".........u........;.....‘..................,“ 200 amW (W) of W mm W vi 200 é was:m (W)- 'mmm _ mama“ 2 Wmisfg‘am ‘ hmm I V/ 11, ha had also pray-6d for quashing of d6partmental enquiryvicie amendment application of Annoxure P/4 and tho amondmont application fact as a reason for dalay in appellate authmity Without cons: tho potitionor for delay in fllin appeal as baiTed by limitation. He further submits that th: direction to respondent No.2 to ( petitioner for delay in filing the a} appropriate order afresh. Shii Rakesh Jha, lean State] respondents " silibmits that ’ petition is disposai of with a dire< appeal prefelied by the petitio reasons assigned by him for appropriate order. In view of above submissio the instant petition is disposed o to consider the reasons assigned in filing the appeal and decide his appropriate order. ' mtiral duss a11d in the said patitk I7. WWWW Fs/95—1x /2oos—1,00,ono. was allowed. He had mentioned this filing the appeal, however, learned dering the above reason assigned by g appeal, summarily dismissed the is petition may be disposed of with a tonsider the reasons assigned by the )peal and decide the same by passing led ’ V Dy the he has no _objection if the instant :tion to respondent No.2 to decide the ner/ appellant after considering the delay in filing "the appeal by an GA appearing 'for 1s of learned counsel for [the parties, f with a dilection to respondent No.2 by the petitioner/ appellant for delay appeal in accordance with law by an ,- a ,7 i a Sd/- Dhirendra Mishrayi Judge p i I