JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for appellant. 2. Appellant has preferred this intra-Court appeal against the order dated 19.11.2012, passed by the Single Bench, whereby his application to implead him as party in the writ petition, has been dismissed. 3. It appears that appellant lodged a FIR under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, wherein the respondent No.3 was arrested and on the basis of his arrest, he was suspended. He, thereafter, preferred a writ petition before this Court. It appears that his suspension order was revoked, but again at the instance of the State Government, the respondent No.3 was again suspended. Respondent No.3 has filed the present writ petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14306/2012, before the Single Bench, challenging his suspension order. The applicant/appellant filed an application to implead him as party in the said writ petition, but the learned Single Judge has dismissed the above application. Hence, appellant has preferred this intra-Court appeal along with an application seeking permission to file the present appeal. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for appellant and after considering his submissions, we find that the present writ petition relates to suspension of respondent No.3, wherein employer and employee, both, are necessary parties. The present appellant is only a complainant in the criminal case and he cannot be said to be a necessary party in the writ petition. 5. In these circumstances, we find that the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in dismissing the application of appellant to implead him as party in the writ petition. We find no illegality in the order passed by the Single Bench, so as to interfere with the same. 6. The appeal is meritless and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 7. In view of above, I.A. No. 11886/2013 and Stay Application No. 839/2013, are also dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******