Virender Singh, C.J. - (1.) DURING pendency of the instant appeal, Mr. Pathak, learned Senior Advocate has placed a supplementary affidavit of the appellant -writ petitioner asserting that one Constable, Rajiv Kumar Ranjan No. 214, who was also charged with the appellant -writ petitioner and dismissed from service, in his separate writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 6892 of 2012 decided by the learned Single Judge on 8.7.2013, has got a relief of quashing of the impugned order of dismissal with a direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry after giving him opportunity of being heard. Mr. Pathak has annexed the photocopy of the order dated 8.7.2013 passed in the said writ petition and states that the said order will have bearing upon the decision of the instant appeal. Copy of the order dated 8.7.2013 has already been provided to the learned State Counsel. We, thus take supplementary affidavit of the appellant with the copy of the order dated 3.7.2013 annexed thereto on record. It shall now form part of the main appeal.
(2.) MR . Pathak fairly concedes that the memo of appeal does not contain inquiry report dated 9.11.2004 with regard to the appellant -writ petitioner. He produces the same in the Court and prays for taking it on record. Copy of the inquiry report has also been provided to the learned State Counsel in the Court itself and she has no objection to it. Prayer acceded to. Inquiry report (in two sets) is taken on record for perusal of the Court.
(3.) THE instant appeal is at admission stage and with the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, we have taken it on board for its final consideration.;