IMPORTANT POINT
The principle of merger and the need to prevent a person from being remediless influenced the court's decision in finding the appeal maintainable. Additionally, the lack of parity in punishment based on the nature of the charges was a key legal principle in the court's decision to dismiss the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:

I.A. No. 3249 of 2022

The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the instant appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay.

4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No.3249 of 2022 is allowed and delay of 17 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No. 45 of 2020

6. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order/judgment dated 26.11.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 564 of 2011 by which the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that earlier writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1391 of 2000(R) filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 05.03.2009, against which restoration application being C.M.P No. 109 of 2010 was filed, which was dismissed on merit vide order dated 20.08.2010 and without challenging the order dated 20.08.2010 passed in the aforesaid restoration application since the present writ petition has been filed, therefore, it is not maintainable.

7. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents have raised the issue of maintainability by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that once the order passed by the original authority vide order dated 31.08.1999 and order passed by the appellate authority dated 21.01.2000 have been challenged by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1391 of 2000(R) and the same was dismissed vide order dated 05.03.2009 and against which one Civil Miscellaneous Application being C.M.P No. 109 of 2010 was filed, which stand dismissed on merit vide order dated 20.08.2010 as such without challenging the order passed in restoration application since second writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 564 of 2011 [subject matter of instant intra-court appeal] has been filed, the instant intra-court appeal is not maintainable.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is correct that while filing the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1391 of 2000(R), the petitioner had challenged order dated 31.08.1999 passed by the original authority and order dated 21.01.2000 passed by the appellate authority but the same was adjudicated on merit since the said writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 1391 of 2000(R), was dismissed for non-prosecution, against which the restoration application being C.M.P. No. 109 of 2010 was filed which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2010 and the said order has not been challenged. But in the meanwhile, the revisional authority has rejected the revision application preferred by the petitioner by affirming the order passed by the appellate authority and since the order passed by the revisional authority was not the subject matter of C.W.J.C. No. 1391 of 2000(R), therefore, on the basis of principle of merger the order passed by the original authority and appellate authority will be said to be merged with the order passed by the revisional authority. Since the order 11.08.2000 passed by the revisional authority is under challenge in the writ petition, therefore, the instant intra-court appeal is maintainable.

9. We, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of order passed by the revisional authority, deem it fit and proper to answer the issue of maintainability.

The law is well settled that the order passed by the original authority if subjected before the appellate authority and the appellate authority confirms the order passed by the original authority, the original order will be merged with the order passed by the appellate authority. Likewise, if the revisional authority confirms the order passed by the appellate authority, the order so passed by the appellate authority will b