Sunil Kumar v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 860 of 2020 ====================================================== Sunil Kumar S/o Shree Chandrika Yadav, Resident of Village-Nawadih, POMathurapur, PS-Sikandra, District-Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through Secretary, Home Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi.

2.

The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

3.

The Inspector General of Police, (Personnel), Central Reserve POlice Force (CRPF), CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,New Delhi 4.

The D.I.G. (Establishment), Directorate, Central Reserve Police Force CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,New Delhi 5.

The IGP, Bihar Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, Patna 6.

The DIG, Group Centre, Central Reserve POlice Force, Mokamaghat, Patna 7.

The Commandant, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Mokamaghat, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Vitesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr Awadhesh Kumar Prasad, Sr CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 14-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

Learned counsel representing the Union of India submits that against the order of punishment and order passed in appeal, the petitioner has remedy by way of revision before the appropriate Authority under Rule 29 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules.

Petitioner's counsel submits that even if the findings

Patna High Court CWJC No.860 of 2020(2) dt.14-02-2020 2/2 are accepted, the punishment is grossly disproportionate and this aspect has not been considered by the Authorities. In view of the objection regarding existence of alternative remedy raised by the Union of India, this Court would observe that the issue of quantum can well be considered by the Revisional Authority. The petitioner should avail the remedy before the Revisional Authority. The objection regarding alternative remedy having been raised by the learned counsel for the Union of India, this Court would only observe that the Revisional Authority (Respondent No 2) shall not raise any objection on grounds of the revision having been filed by delay, if the same is preferred within four weeks from today. Writ petition stands disposed of.

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