← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/7123/2019dismissed

Nishant Kumar v. Union Of India

2019-04-29Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7123 of 2019 ====================================================== Nishant Kumar S/o Sri Nandlal Singh Res. of Vill.- and P.O.- Kesawe, P.S.- Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Union of India through the D.G., CRPF, C.G.O. Complex New Delhi. 2.

The Central Vigilance Commissioner New Delhi. 3.

The I.G., CRPF, Bihar Sector, Digha Patna 4.

The D.I.G., CRPF Group Centre, Muzaffarpur.

5.

The D.I.G ( Administration), CRPF, Bihar Sector, Patna. 6.

The Commandant 190 Battalion, CRPF, Chatra, Jharkhand. 7.

The Second In Commandant(21C) 190 Battalion, CRPF, Chatra. 8.

The Deputy Commandant 190 Battalion, CRPF, Chatra, Jharkhand. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents :

Mr. S.D. Sanjay (Addl. Solicitor General) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 29-04-2019 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has been compulsorily retired from the post of Constable. He has approached this Court for a direction to have the allegations levelled by him investigated by any impartial agency.

3. The allegation, on face of it, appears to be quite vague.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7123 of 2019 dt.29-04-2019 2/2

4. What can be gathered from the petition is that some superior officer at Jharkhand had been taking the services of some of the Constables at his residence at the place of work and his Delhi residence. From the very tenor of the allegation, it appears that the petitioner is mouthing the grievance of some other person, who has some axe to grind against the superior officer. The present petition has been filed without there being any definite evidence of the irregularities alleged.

5. This Court would have imposed cost on the petitioner for coming up with such frivolous/vague petition but taking into account that he is no longer in service, no order is being passed on cost.

6. The petition, being meritless, is dismissed. (Ashutosh Kumar, J) krishna/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 30.04.2019 Transmission Date