Tarkeshwar Bharti vs The Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 242 Jhar

                                    1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   W.P.(S) No. 210 of 2007
     Tarkeshwar Bharti                        ..... Petitioner
                           Versus
    1. The Union of India.
    2. The Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F, Patna.
    3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F,
       Jamshedpur.
    4. The Deputy Commandant, 114 Batallion, C.R.P.F. Rani
       District-Kamrup, Assam.
    5. The Commandant, 114 Batallion, C.R.P.F, Rani, District-
       Kamrup, Assam.                        .....   Respondents
                            ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kr., Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Nitu Sinha, C.G.C

---------

18/Dated: 18th January, 2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by

the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the

revisional order dated 14.03.2005 issued by respondent

no.2, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner

against the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary

authority and order in appeal; sustaining the dismissal of

the petitioner, has been rejected.

3. Mr. Manish Kr, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that this is a fit case, where the impugned order

should be quashed on the ground of perversity. He further

submits that in catena of judgments the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that though the High Court under its writ

jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal, but certainly if it is a case

of no evidence then the interference is must. He further

submits that at the place of incidence, there were three

sections with CRPF Personnel, but it is only this petitioner

who has been dismissed from service. He further submits

that he has taken specific ground in his revision application

which has been filed in pursuance to the order of this Court

that "..........all other constables charge- sheeted as well as

named in the criminal case all such constables have been

reinstated in service except me."

Relying upon the aforesaid ground taken in the

revision application learned counsel tries to impress this

Court that the same ground has not been considered by the

authority concerned, though he has given finding on other

grounds but the ground of discrimination has not been

touched.

4. In view of the aforesaid submission, he submits that

a liberty may be given to this petitioner to approach the

concerned respondent who shall reconsider his case only

on the ground of discrimination.

5. Ms. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that the revisional order is well reasoned order and

the authority has touched each and every point. She

further submits that there is no perversity in the order of

punishment.

Further, all the allegations have been proved against

this petitioner. Even otherwise, the order of dismissal is of

2001 and the appellate order is of 2003 and the impugned

order of revision is also of 2005, but the petitioner had filed

the instant writ application after one year of the revisional

order; as such, no interference is required. However,

learned counsel fails to demonstrate that there is any

specific discussion on the ground of discrimination.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

after going through the documents annexed with this

application, it appears that the petitioner had taken one of

the grounds that all other constables charge-sheeted as

well as named in the criminal case; all such constables

have been reinstated in service except this petitioner.

However, admittedly; this ground of discrimination has not

been discussed by the revisional authority though on all

other grounds he has given specific findings.

In this view of the matter the petitioner is at

liberty to approach the respondent no.2 along with copy of

the revision application filed earlier within a period of two

months from today. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 shall

look into the matter and if the case of the petitioner is

found same and similar and if the charges alleged against

this petitioner are same and similar with other co-

employees who have been reinstated in service, then

necessary order be passed within a period of four months.

It goes without saying that while passing the fresh

order, the revisional authority shall not be prejudiced by

the previous order and shall discuss only the ground of

discrimination as taken by the petitioner in his revision

application.

7. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application

stands disposed of.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Amardeep/