RANCHI, India, June 4 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on April 4:

1. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order dated 14.07.2021(Annexure-9); whereby his request of reinstatement has been rejected on 14.07.2021.

2. The petitioner has further prayed for his reinstatement with back wages with all consequential benefits.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the Inquiry officer submitted his enquiry report & charges levelled against the Petitioner has been proved & thereafter the disciplinary authority (Respondent No. 3) removed the Petitioner vide order dated 15.09.2014, and hence the Petitioner during the stipulated time preferred an appeal on 29.09.2014.

4. In the meantime, the petitioner preferred Cr. appeal and the Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2018 pending in the Court Additional Judicial Commissioner, Vth Ranchi has been allowed and the Petitioner has been acquitted from punishment and conviction.

5. The Petitioner has represented to the Respondent Dy. Inspector General of Police, Ranchi regarding joining on duty with all consequential benefit pursuant to the order dated 23.12.2019, passed by appellate court Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2018.

6. The Director General, CRPF passed an order dated 14.07.2021, wherein he has rejected the representation for reinstatement.

7. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents (CRPF) submits that the petitioner was removed from his service, vide order dated 29.09.2014 and the petitioner did not challenge the order of removal in this writ application.

8. In reply to the contention of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for filing the instant writ application is that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case and therefore, he has made a representation before the authorities to reinstate him.

9. From record, it appears that the petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in WP(S) No. 2069 of 2015. However, the petitioner withdrew that writ application and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.

10. Since the original order of punishment has not been challenged in the instant application and only the appellate order dated 12.11.2014 as well as revisional order dated 04.03.2015 is under challenge; rather, it could not have been otherwise challenged, for the reason, that the petitioner had already challenged the said order before this Court in W.P(S) No. 2069 of 2015 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn.

11. Further, after going through the impugned order of punishment, which is part of the pleading, though not challenged, it appears that it does not suffers from any procedural irregularity; nor there is any perversity in the order

12. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

13. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.