Sanjay Paswan v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.522 of 2023 ====================================================== Sanjay Paswan Son of Umesh Paswan, Resident of Village- Saidpur, Police Station- Ghoshi, District- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India 2.

The A.D.G., C.Z., C.R.P.F. (Central Reserve Police Force), Kolkata Office of the Special D.G., Central Zone, C.R.P.F., Salt Late, Sector-3, H.C. Block, Kolkata- 700106, (West Bengal) 3.

The Deputy Inspector General, (Adm.), C.Z., C.R.P.F. (Central Reserve Police Force), Kolkata.

4.

The Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Bhuvneshwar Range, Odisha. 5.

The Commandment- 127 Battalion, C.R.P.F., Bhuvneshwar Range, Odessa. 6.

The A.D.G., C.Z., C.R.P.F., Kolkata, West Bengal- 700106 ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mukul Sinha, Advocate For the U.O.I.

:

Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Ravindar Kumar, C.G.C.

Mr. Lokesh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 15-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Union of India.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted at the Bar that the petitioner has earlier lost his battle till Letters Patent Appeal and it was only by way of compassion that the petitioner who was appellant in L.P.A. No. 496 of 2018 was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to represent to the appropriate authority.

Patna High Court CWJC No.522 of 2023(2) dt.15-03-2023 2/2 Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the Union of India has pointed out from the order dated 19.11.2019 passed in L.P.A. No. 496 of 2018 that while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the L.P.A., the Hon'ble Division Bench had clarified that the Court had not interfered with the findings of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to revisit the challenge thrown to the orders passed by the disciplinary authority.

This application has no merit, it is dismissed accordingly.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) tusharika/- U