Shri. Yogesh S/O Laxman Jumnake vs The Union Of India, Through Its ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4679 Bom

                                                        1                   J-WP-3394-13.odt

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 3394 OF 2013

 Shri Yogesh s/o Laxman Jumnake,
 Aged about : 24 years, Occ. Nil,
 R/o Wadhona Bazar, Ta - Ralegaon,
 Dist - Yavatmal.                                                 ..... PETITIONER

                                 ...V E R S U S...

 1. The Union of India,
    through it Secretary
    Ministry of Defence,
    Mantralaya,
    New Delhi.

 2. Deputy Inspector General of Police,
    Central Reserve Police Force,
    Chandigarh Range, Hallomajara,
    Chandigarh (U.T.).

 3. Commandant,
    23, B.N. C.R.P.F.,
    The Enquiry Officer,
    Karannagar, Shrinagar (J & K).                                ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri M. P. Kariya, Advocate for the petitioner.
 Shri S. A. Chaudhari, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                  CORAM:-    
                                             SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                                 ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :-

18/07/2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of

the Deputy Inspector General of Police (C.R.P.F.) dated 09/02/2013

2 J-WP-3394-13.odt

dismissing the petitioner from service as also the order of the Appellate

Authority upholding the order of punishment.

The learned counsel for the respondents states that the

petitioner has not availed the alternate remedy of filing a revision under

Rule 29 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. It is stated that

when the appeal of a member of the C.R.P.F. is rejected by the

competent authority, the member is entitled to file a revision under

Rule 29 of the Rules of 1955. It is stated that the petitioner may avail

the alternate remedy and then approach this Court, if the petitioner fails

in the revision filed by him.

Shri Kariya, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that

the petitioner would file a revision before the Revisional Authority

under Rule 29 of the Rules of 1955 within one month and this Court

may direct that the said revision may be decided as expeditiously as

possible as the matter is lingering in this Court for more than three

years.

In view of the existence of the alternate remedy, we dispose

of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a revision under

Rule 29 of the Rules of 1955.

The Revisional Authority while considering the delay in

filing the revision, take note of the fact that the petitioner had filed this

writ petition in this Court on 15/04/2013 and he was bona fide

prosecuting the matter before this Court. The Revisional Authority may

3 J-WP-3394-13.odt

decide the revision application within four months from the date of the

receipt of the same.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

                      JUDGE                            JUDGE




 Choulwar