Dismissed

Sripati Sharma v. The Union Of India Through Home Secretary And Ors.

Jharkhand HC13 Feb 2020WPC/6819/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addressed a writ petition seeking to quash a retirement order from the CRPF based on unauthorized leave. The Court dismissed the petition without deciding the merits, directing the petitioner to file a revision before the competent authority within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file revision before competent authority within six weeks; writ petition disposed of.

Sripati Sharma Vs The Union Of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 6819 of 2016

¶3

Sripati Sharma. … …Petitioner -Versus-

¶4

The Union of India through Home Secretary, Govt. of India, Delhi.

¶5

The Deputy Inspector General of Central Reserve Police Force, P.S. Jagarnathpur, P.O. Dhurwa, Ranchi Range, Jharkhand.

¶6

The Commandant-94 Battalian, Central Reserve Police Force Khunti, P.O.+ P.S. Khunti, Jharkhand.

¶7

The Enquiry Officer cum Deputy Commandant-94 Battalian, C.R.P.F. P.O. & P.S. Khunti, Dist. Khunti. …

¶8

… …Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶11

For the Petitioner :Mr. Saket Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Advocate. ------------

¶12

06/ 13.02.2020

¶13

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order contained in Memo No. P-VIII 3/2010-94 dated 13.5.11 (Annexure-3) issued under the signature of the Commandant 94 Battalian, Central Reserve Police Force, Babana New Delhi by which the petitioner has been removed from service from the post of Constable 94 Bn. CRPF with effect from 16.5.2011 for exceeding the sanctioned leave of 15 days and not joining duty after expiry of sanctioned leave under the power vested in Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rules 27 of CRPF Rules, 1953 as well as for quashing the appellate order as contained in Memo No.R-13-94/2015 dated 25.1.16 (Annexure-4) issued under the signature of the Deputy Inspector General of Central Reserve Police Force Ranchi Range Jharkhand by which the said appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner as exercised under Rule 28 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955.

¶14

¶15

The order of dismissal has been assailed. However, it has been pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India that petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy of revision.

¶16

Under the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file revision before the competent authority, if so advised, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If an application for revision is preferred before the competent authority, the same shall be considered on merit by condoning the delay ,if any, and disposed of with a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

¶17

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶18

P.K.S.

Sripati Sharma v. The Union Of India Through Home Secretary And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sripati Sharma v. The Union Of India Through Home Secretary And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Bijendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kaushal Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Smita Pritam Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Khirodhar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary Govt of Jharkhand

Rahil Barla Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vanshi Hadi Vs the Jh Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Managing Director