ORDER : 1. This appeal is barred by limitation. 2. The appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge which was originally passed on 3.2.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in earlier appeal being DB Special Appeal (writ) No. 456/2017, he raised various arguments and one of the arguments raised was that in the case of one constable Nirbhay Singh against whom allegation of remaining willful absent for 76 days from duty, was found to be proved, and the same disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect; whereas in the case of another constable Pratap Singh, charge of remaining willful absent for 117 days from duty, was found to be proved and penalty of stoppage of two grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed. Both the documents are placed on record at Annex.10 & Annex.11 respectively in the writ petition. 4. The Division Bench of this court observed that these arguments have not been considered by the learned Single Judge. Hence at that stage, counsel for the appellant sought permission of the court to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a review petition. Vide order dated 6.10.2017, the Division Bench decided the appeal by granting liberty to prefer review petition. The appellant thereafter preferred the review petition on 3.11.2017 but the learned Single Judge despite the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay, dismissed the review petition vide order dated 17.7.2018 on the ground or delay but lastly it was also observed that there was no case on merit as grounds not raised before this court in the first instance cannot be allowed to be agitated in this review petition. 5. Soon after dismissal of the review petition, appeal was filed on 6.9.2018. The counsel appearing for the State though opposed the application for condonation of delay and claimed that having filed the review petition on 3.11.2017, the appellant did not recently pursue the same and thus review petition was decided much belatedly on 17.7.2018. The application under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act was moved praying for condonation of delay. The counsel appearing for the State though opposed the application for condonation of delay and claimed that having filed the review petition on 3.11.2017, the appellant did not recently pursue the same and thus review petition was decided much belatedly on 17.7.2018. The application under Sec. 5 of Limitation Act was moved praying for condonation of delay. The learned Single Judge was not justified in condoning the delay because the appeal originally filed by the appellant was not within limitation and when the afore-mentioned argument was raised before the Division Bench, a liberty was given to the appellant by the court to file a review petition. 6. In our considered opinion, delay should have been condoned be that as it may but considering that the appellant has made out a prima facie discretion, this will have to be contested by the respondents that in the case of two delinquents i.e. constable Nirbhay Singh, against whom charge of remaining willful absent of 76 days from duty, was proved and penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect was awarded, and in the case of another constable Pratap singh, against whom charge of remaining willful absent of 117 days from duty, was proved and penalty of stoppage of only two grade increments with cumulative effect was awarded, and the appellant has placed on record the orders of penalties imposed vide order dated 16.7.2007 (Annex. 10) and 30.6.2007 (Annex. 11) respectively to substantiate his arguments. This matter requires consideration as the appellant has asserted the argument of discrimination by the same disciplinary authority. 7. Having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration the judgment of learned Single Judge is set aside and hence the matter remanded to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ on merits afresh.