JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. This Special Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in pending S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17500/2024, whereby Stay Application No.17582/2024 has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant (writ petitioner) was served a charge-sheet on 19.06.2024, reply whereto was filed by the appellant on 07.08.2024. The appellant thereafter, sought certain documents from the respondents. As per the appellant however, without affording proper opportunity of hearing, a punishment of stoppage of Annual Grade Increments for three consecutive terms for a period of two years, with non-cumulative effect, was imposed upon the appellant. 3. The appellant present in person submitted that vide the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 which was not a speaking order, the stay application has been summarily and cursorily dismissed. 3.1. It was further submitted by the appellant that the respondents i.e., Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank and the Disciplinary Officer have failed to adhere to the basic parameters of natural justice, and thus, are misleading the Court regarding the charge-sheet and the punishment in question. 3.2. It was also submitted that the punishment given is on a much higher side and impact thereof will be for lifelong and thus, the same ought to be interfered with. 4. Mr. Anil Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made by the appellant present in person, supported the impugned order. 5. After hearing the appellant present in person and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds the impugned order in the writ petition, whereby punishment in question has been imposed upon the appellant is an order, which can be redressed at any stage by giving appropriate retrospective benefits to the appellant, if he is found entitled finally. The refusal as made by the learned Single Judge to consider the stay application, by rejecting the same vide the impugned order, does not prejudice the case of the appellant. The appellant can lay his facts and grounds at length in the pending writ petition, and after due assistance from both the sides, the learned Single Judge shall proceed to pass final orders, which will completely adjudicate upon the dispute in question. 6. The appellant can lay his facts and grounds at length in the pending writ petition, and after due assistance from both the sides, the learned Single Judge shall proceed to pass final orders, which will completely adjudicate upon the dispute in question. 6. In the given factual matrix, the rejection of the stay application did not cause any such grave prejudice to the appellant, which cannot be undone or redressed at the time of final hearing of the writ petition, and has neither caused any kind of immediate loss nor any irreparable loss to the appellant, so as to warrant any interference by this Court in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, at this stage. 7. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed . However, the appellant as well as the respondents shall be at liberty to raise all their legal issues before the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petition.