Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7687-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 50 of 2025 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Personnel And 3 Others Respondent :- Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Kushagra Dikshit Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. C.M. Application No.1 of 2025 (Application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Appeal): 1. Heard the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-appellants, Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kushagra Dikshit, Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party and perused the records. 2. The instant intra-Court Appeal filed by the State is delayed by 28 days as on the date of filing i.e. 28.01.2025. 3. The appeal is accompanied with an application seeking condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, we find that just and plausible reasons have been disclosed by the applicant-appellant seeking condonation of delay. 4. In absence of any objection and the explanation offered being bona fide, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. Let the Special Appeal be assigned a regular number. Order on the Special Appeal: 6. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 22.11.2024, passed by the writ court in Writ-A No.11053 of 2024, of which operative part reads as under: "10. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires consideration and further it is clear from the orders sheet that prima facie there does not seem to be any reason which may indicate the culpability of the petitioner for keeping the matter pending deliberately. Even other-wise, before taking any action against a person having quasi judicial function all facts has to be more carefully looked into considering huge pendency of the matters under Revenue Code. Accordingly, a case for interference is made out. 11. Till the next date of listing, operation of the impugned bearing No.1/795385/2024 dated 13.11.2024 passed by respondent No.1, shall remain stayed." 7. On a close scrutiny of the judgment/order impugned herein this appeal, it is gathered that the order of suspension having been resorted to on a general allegation not attributable to the respondent alone of which the consequence may not be a major punishment has been stayed by this court, wherein, we do not find any illegality for interference in exercise of the appellate powers of this court. We however clarify that stay of the order of suspension would not preclude the departmental authorities from concluding the disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under the order passed and this exercise shall be completed within a period of six months. The interim order is made absolute subject to the clarification as above. 8. With this clarification, the intra-Court Appeal as well as the Writ Petition is disposed of. [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [A.R. Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench