IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.104 of 2009 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Deputy Secretary, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Superintending Engineer, South Bihar Circle, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The District Magistrate, Patna.— appellants. Versus Sunil Kumar son of Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, R/O Qrtr.No.C/1, Bank Road, P-5, Kotwali, Distt-Patna. —Respondent. For the appellants : Mr. Anis Akhtar AC to AAG-X For the respondent : None. --------- Reg: I.A.No.674 of 2009. 2. 03.2.2009. This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. According to the Stamp Reporter, the appeal is barred by limitation of 405 days. AC to AAG-X appears on behalf of the appellants. The cause shown for condoning the delay is not sufficient. Accordingly, the application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is rejected. However, a good cause may not be lost on the ground of limitation, we have examined, prima facie, the legality and validity of the order. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge had quashed the order of suspension as also 2 the memo of charge. While doing so, it has been observed that the action of the appellants, herein, for putting the writ petitioner under suspension smacks bias and malafide. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion, it has been observed that charge leveled against the writ petitioner is the same as those leveled against him on two earlier occasions. It is also observed that the first charge has been quashed, whereas the second charge has been stayed by this court. According to the appellants’ counsel, the prayer of the writ petitioner was to quash the order of suspension only and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have quashed the charge. Nothing prevents the Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution to mould the relief. The learned Single Judge was conscious of this fact and observing that it has power to mould the relief, had quashed the charge. Appeal being barred by limitation, stands dismissed. ahk (C. K. Prasad,ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma) 3