Ex. Ct. G. Raja Komriaah @ G. Raja Komuraiah,Bn. C/87, C.R.P.F., v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.313 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8800 of 1998 ====================================================== Ex. Ct. G. Raja Komriaah @ G. Raja Komuraiah,Bn. C/87, C.R.P.F., Son of Kumraiyya, Resident of Village-Kathkoor, P.S.-Akanapeta, District-Sidhipeta. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home, New Delhi. 2.

The Commandant, 87 Bn. C.R.P.F., Parisanagar, Tripura. 3.

The Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Eastern Sector, Patna (Bihar).

4.

The Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Bihar Sector, Patna (Bihar). 5.

The Assistant Commandant, 87 Bn. C.R.P.F., Mathura (U.P.). ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Swati Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. S.D. Sanjay ( Addl. Solicitor General) For UOI :

Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, CGC Ms. Radhika Raman, Sr. Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 08-05-2025 Heard Ms. Swati Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India.

2. The present application has been filed:

for review of the order dated 05.07.2019, passed in CWJC No. 8800 of 1998 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Kumar Prasad.

3. Though the Writ Court was dismissed the petition as not pressed in view of the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, before passing said order in CWJC No. 8800 of

Patna High Court C. REV. No.313 of 2019(5) dt.08-05-2025 2/2 1998 (Ex-CT G Raja Kumaria Vs. Union of India and Ors.) vide an order dated 05.07.2019, the Writ Court recorded that the petitioner being a habitual deserter, chose not to even submit written statement or opportunity to cross examine the evidence of witnesses whose statements were recorded in his presence opined that the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority/Revisional Authority cannot be interfered.

4. Upon query, whether the facts recorded by the learned Writ Court that the petitioner is/was a habitual deserter or not, the answer is in positive. The CRPF being a disciplined force, a person who is in the category of habitual deserter and further chose not to avail the remedy, as recorded above, the findings arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority/Revisional Authority need no interference.

5. The Civil Review petition stands dismissed. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U