[2025:RJ-JP:8742] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2814/2024 Moti Lal Vyas S/o. Shri Hari Kishan Vyas, Aged About 48 Years, Resident of 21/167, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur-(Raj.) (Ex-Constable No. 827 CID (SSB), PHQ, Jaipur-(Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence), Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. The Inspector General of Police (State Special Branch)- Inte., Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. Superintendent of Police, (Intelligence), Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anoop Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC Ms. Krishma Soni JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/02/2025 1. By way of filing of the instant writ petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned termination order dated 17.12.2021 has been dismissed on the ground of barred by limitation. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the impugned termination order dated 17.12.2021 was passed, the petitioner was in custody and he was granted bail on 18.02.2022. Counsel submits that thereafter the appeal was prepared and preferred [2025:RJ-JP:8742] (2 of 3) [CW-2814/2024] before the Appellate Authority on 18.05.2022 but the same has been dismissed but on technical count of being barred by limitation and not on merits. Counsel submits that the reason of delay was well explained by the petitioner in the memo of appeal but the same was not considered and the order impugned has been passed. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the appeal was submitted after the expiry of period of limitation of three months. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the Appellate Authority has not committed any error in rejecting the appeal as the appeal was barred by limitation. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was arrested in a criminal case on 05.12.2021 and he remained in judicial custody till 18.02.2022, thereafter, he was released on bail and in the meantime, his services were terminated by the respondents on 17.12.2021 when the petitioner was in custody. After releasing on bail, the appeal was preferred by the petitioner and all these facts were mentioned in the memo of appeal but the same were overlooked by the Appellate Authority. 6. When the reasons of delay were extensively explained in the memo of appeal, it is expected from the Appellate Authority to [2025:RJ-JP:8742] (3 of 3) [CW-2814/2024] decide the appeal on its merits instead of dismissing the same on the ground of delay. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.07.2022 stands quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh on its merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. 8. Stay application as well as all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Garima/279