RANCHI, India, Nov. 25 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 29:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers:

(i) For an issuance of an appropriate writ preferably in the nature of certiorari to set aside / quash the order dated 04.07.2020, passed by the Deputy Commandant of C.I.S.F Unit KTPS Koderma, Banjhedih, vide letter No. V-15014/ Keausub / KTPS / Anu. / Chetawani / 2020-3414, whereby and where-under punishment of Warning has been given to the petitioner by way of passing the order by the aforesaid authority in his own cause. And/or

(ii) For an issuance of an appropriate writ(s) commanding and directing upon the respondents concerned to initiate criminal or departmental action against the erring officers for having raid / search of the house of the petitioner without getting the permission and / or without obtaining search warrant of the house of the petitioner from the competent authority by fabricating false evidence.

3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order as contained in Memo No. 3414 dated 04.07.2020 passed by the Deputy Commandant of CISF Unit KTPS Koderma, Banjhedih has approached this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that infact the petitioner was harassed by the higher officials for which the petitioner made a complaint. Without properly appreciating the aforesaid fact and without punishing the real culprits, the petitioner was issued the aforesaid letter which caused prejudice to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that order which the petitioner is challenging is not an order of punishment nor any departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and this order will have no adverse effect on the petitioner or in the career of the petitioner.

6. Heard the parties and have gone through the impugned order which is at Annexure-8 to the writ petition. From the impugned order, I find that it is a communication whereby the higher authorities has given a warning to the petitioner. Admittedly this is not a punishment, as no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Further as per the submission of the learned counsel for the Union of India, this warning will have no adverse effect upon the service career of the petitioner.

7. Thus, from the aforesaid fact it is clear that the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the warning as contained in letter dated 04.07.2020 as the same will not have any adverse effect upon him.

8. So far as the second prayer of initiating a proceeding against the alleged erring officials is concerned, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court cannot give direction as sought for by the petitioner.

9. This writ petition is misconceived, thus, the same is dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.