JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This case comes up on an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal is barred by 4 days. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application, we are sufficient cause from filing the appeal within limitation. The application is, therefore, allowed and the appeal be taken on record as regularly instituted appeal. 4. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, we also heard the appeal on merit. 5. A joint enquiry was conducted against Shri D.L. Chouhan, K.M. Purohit and Puran Mal Mathur by order dated 23.2.93 (Ex. 13). A punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed on all the three incumbents and they were also prohibited from being posted at the place of construction. 6. The appeal against the same was also dismissed by the Appellate Court on 21.4.93 (Ex. 15). 7. In the first instance, the writ petition was filed by Mr. Q.L. Chouhan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2834/94, challenging the orders of punishment of stoppage of one grade increment. The said writ petition was decided by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the impugned orders were quashed. The punishment was quashed on multiple grounds. Primarily being that the enquiry has been conducted in breach of principles of natural justice including no reasons were given for disagreement with the finding submitted by the Enquiry Officer nor any show cause notice in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 8. Learned Single Judge was also of the opinion that tenor of order shows lack of application of mind on the part of competent authority as well as by the Appellate Authority the order being bereft of any reasons. This order has not been challenged by the appellants anywhere and has become final. When the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, both the parties submitted before the Court that the petition is fully'- 'Bred by the judgment and order dated 6.3.97 passed by this Court in D.L. Chauhan's case and accordingly, the order dated 23rd February, 1993 (Ex. 13) and order dated 21st April, 1993 (Ex. 15) were quashed. The petitioner was to get same relief as has been granted in the case of D.L. Chauhan. 9. 13) and order dated 21st April, 1993 (Ex. 15) were quashed. The petitioner was to get same relief as has been granted in the case of D.L. Chauhan. 9. We have already noticed above that it was a case of joint enquiry in respect of same charges and proceeding in the case of D.L. Chauhan's case has become final vide the judgment referred to above. In these circumstances, there is no reason for this Court to treat the case of respondents-petitioners in any way differently from D.L. Chauhan's case as both have suffered a joint enquiry in respect of same charges, result cannot be different.Therefore, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed Without Touching Question of Limitation. *******