Vijay Balu Alias Balakrishna Karvekar Vs Union of India

THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF OFFICER, THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, CRPF BENGALURU GROUP CENTER, DODDABALLAPUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560064.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶21

a) ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO

¶22

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9078 WP No. 101885 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30-09-2024 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C.

¶25

b) ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE 3^RD RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30-09-2024 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C1 AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

¶30

well as learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh Kharvi, Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) appearing for the respondents.

¶31

The office objection regarding maintainability is over-ruled.

¶32

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 30.09.2024.

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9078 WP No. 101885 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The petitioner is a serviceman who was enlisted

¶36

in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) under the reserved quota for Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidates on the basis on his caste certificate. He had submitted his application stating that he belongs to the Hindu Bedar ST caste. This being the state of affairs the petitioner was subsequently discharged from service on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Vidyadhar, who was occupying the office of respondent No.3, on the allegations made against the petitioner for having created fake caste certificate to enjoy the ST quota. It was the complaint against the petitioner that the petitioner had committed a fraud and got employment. Consequently, FIR was registered for the alleged offence of the forgery against the petitioner.

¶37

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, after the investigation in the criminal case registered against the petitioner, ‘B’ report came to be filed. The same was questioned by the complainant therein

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9078 WP No. 101885 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

by way of protest memo/application, which led to taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. Subsequently, the matter was taken up by the petitioner for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., which was rejected. Petitioner had taken up the matter in Criminal Revision Petition No.187/2022 which came to be allowed and the petitioner was discharged from the said case. Thereafter, petitioner made a representation for reinstatement on 30.09.2024. The same

¶41

was not considered and is still pending. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking Writ of Mandamus.

¶42

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sole reason for dismissal of the petitioner from service was on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant and in the said criminal case the petitioner having been discharged from all charges, the petitioner ought to have been reinstated and despite making an application to the respondent, the same was

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9078 WP No. 101885 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

not considered. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to be reinstated and the representation requires to be considered.

¶46

Learned DSGI Sri.Venkatesh Kharvi appearing

¶47

on behalf of respondent, does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has been discharged from the criminal case and

¶48

so also the representation has been submitted by the petitioner. He contends that the representation of the petitioner will be considered, if reasonable time is granted for the same.

¶49

In view of the submission made by learned DSGI for the respondent and the fact that the petitioner has been discharged from the criminal case, the representation is required to be considered in accordance with law.

¶50

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9078 WP No. 101885 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

(ii) A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 30.09.2024, keeping in mind the discharge of the petitioner from the criminal case and to pass suitable order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶56

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶57

RHR/-

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Vijay Balu Alias Balakrishna Karvekar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Balu Alias Balakrishna Karvekar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Baburao B Rane, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Machindra S/O Nagappa Kamble Vs Sri Shravan S/O Nagappa Kamble

Sharanegoud Mali Patil Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt. Rashmi K Lokare W/O Kedar Vs North West Karntaka Road Transport Corporation

Sri. Shrimanth Sulemanappa Bagalkot Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddalingeshwarayya Gangayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka