JUDGMENT : M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. I.A. No. 5116 of 2024 This application is filed to condone the delay of 245 days in filing the appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 1849 of 2021, dt. 07.08.2023. 2. In the application filed seeking condonation of delay, it is contended by the applicants that he was not aware of the dismissal of his case by the learned Single Judge and he came to know about it only in February, 2024, when he contacted the office of his lawyer and requested the office clerk of the lawyer to obtain certified copy of the order of the learned Single Judge. 3. He states that the certified copy was applied on 24.02.2024 and was handed over on 07.03.2024 and he was informed about it only in the3 rd week of March, 2024. 4. He contended that after discussing with his lawyer, he realised that the order was passed upon false and misleading submissions made by the respondents and so he applied on 08.04.2024 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certain information, which was provided only on 26.04.2024. He stated that he then engaged another lawyer and then the appeal was filed on 08.05.2024. According to him this resulted in the delay in filing the appeal. 5. Notice in this application was issued on 12.11.2024 and Mr.Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned A.C. to A.G. accepted notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mrs. Khalida Haya Rashmi, learned counsel, accepted notice for respondent Nos. 4 to 9. 6. The matter was then listed on 10.12.2024 and adjourned to 16.01.2025. However, no counter affidavit was filed by any of the respondents. 7. However, oral submissions were made by counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 9 opposing the condonation of delay and disputing the fact that the respondents had made false and misleading submissions before the learned Single Judge. She also contended that the applicant had not shown sufficient cause for condoning the period of delay of 245 days in filing the appeal. According to her, the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in no way helps the applicant and that the applicant ought to have filed the appeal within the time prescribed by law. 8. We have noted the submissions of both sides. 9. According to her, the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in no way helps the applicant and that the applicant ought to have filed the appeal within the time prescribed by law. 8. We have noted the submissions of both sides. 9. At this stage, we do not wish to comment upon the allegation leveled by the applicant against the respondents as regards making false and misleading submissions by the respondent before the learned Single Judge. That would be a matter to be looked at a later point of time, in the event, we chose to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 10. The issue in the writ petition relates to termination of the services of the applicant on 19.3.2021 as Chief Accounts Officer of respondent Nos. 4 to 9, having appointed him on 23.02.2018. It is alleged by the applicant that the order of termination is stigmatic, and that the order of termination is based on charges, which were not mentioned in the show cause notice dt. 08.01.2021, issued prior to the passing of the termination order. It is also alleged that the respondents did not follow the principles of natural justice. 11. No doubt, the applicant should have been vigilant in following the progress of the case before the learned Single Judge and should have followed up with his original lawyer about what was happening in this case even if the said lawyer had not informed him from time to time as to what was happening in the case. 12. Normally this Court would not have taken such conduct lightly, but in the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant that the impugned order was passed because of false and misleading submissions made by the respondents which may require examination in the appeal, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice, on payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) to the High Court Legal Services Committee of Jharkhand High Court within four weeks from today, the said delay ought to be condoned. 13. Accordingly, this application is allowed subject to the applicant paying cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) as indicated above within the time prescribed. In default of complying with this order, this application shall stand dismissed.