IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 423 of 2008 (S/S) Rajendra Singh Khanka, Son of late Shyam Singh Khanka, presently posted as Registrar Kanoongo, Tehsil-Munsiyari, District Pithoragarh. …… Petitioner. Versus District Magistrate, Pithoragarh and two others. … Respondents. Sri Rajendra Singh Khanka … Applicant Sri M.C.Kandpal, Senior Advocate, with Sri K.N.Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C., for the State-respondents. Date July 09, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Modification Application No. 763 of 2008) Sri M.C.Kandpal, Senior Advocate, with Sri K.N.Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. This modification application has been moved by the petitioner for modification of the order dated 10-6-2008 with the prayer that the condition part of the order has been left out in the operative order which makes it desirable that if the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner is not concluded within the specified period, the suspension order against the petitioner shall stand revoked. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the order dated 10-6-2008. The mistake is clerical and bona fide. The modification application deserves to be allowed. The operative part of the order dated 10-6-2008 is liable to be modified. 2 The modification application is allowed. The operative paragraph of the order dated 10-6-2008 shall be read as under in place of the existing paragraph:- “In the circumstances of the case, the respondent no.1- District Magistrate Pithoragarh is directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings finally against the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. If the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within the stipulated period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, the suspension order dated 12-5-2008 passed by respondent no.1 against the petitioner shall stand revoked.” This order shall form part of the earlier order dated 10- 6-2008. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 3 4 5 6