Patna High CourtCWJC/17537/2015disposed

Mahesh Kumar Choudhary v. The Union Of India And ORS

2018-03-07Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 17537 of 2015 ====================================================== Mahesh Kumar Choudhary Son of Sri Ram Balak Choudhary Resident of village - Raghunandpur, P.O. Raghunandpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District - Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi

2. The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi

3. The Inspector General - Cum - Revisional Authority, Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar Sector, Patna

4. The Deputy Inspector General - Cum - Appellate Authority, Central Reserve Police Force, Patna

5. The Commandant, 22nd Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Bazar Samiti, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : M/s S S Mishra, Brisketu Sharan Pandey & Prince Kr Mishra, Advocates For the Respondent/s : Mr S D Sanjay, ASG Mr Anshay Bahadur Mathur, CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 07-03-2018 At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a prayer that he may be given liberty to persuade the authorities to reconsider the punishment as the same is disproportionate to the charge.

In view of the limited nature of prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No 3 with his claim/representation so as to persuade him to reconsider the

Patna High Court CWJC No.17537 of 2015 (3) dt.07-03-2018 2/2 quantum of punishment. If such representation/claim is filed within two weeks, the authorities would be obliged to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within eight weeks. This Court, however, is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim made by the petitioner. It is made clear that since the limited prayer has been made by the petitioner, it is for the authority to exercise his discretion in the matter. The order passed by the authority hereafter shall finally conclude the issue.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U