IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12346 of 2011 Musuka Basumatary @ Masuka Basumatary …Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India service through the Secretary Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 2. Deputy inspector of Police, CRPF, Range HQR, Muzaffarpur, Bihar 3. Deputy Inspector of Police, GC, CRPF, Muzaffarpur, Bihar 4. Commandant, 116 BN. CRPF, Dhaligaon, Bongaigaon, Assam 5. Enquiry officer and Deputy Commandant, Office of the 116 BN CRPF, Dhaligaon, Bongaigaon, Assam …Respondents ----------- 02. 01.08.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 05.03.2008, passed by the disciplinary authority (Annexure-3) as also the appellate order dated 12.03.2010 (Annexure-7). Diverse submissions in support of the application have been made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Additional Solicitor General states that the rule governing the case, namely, the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 itself provides remedy in the shape of a revision in terms of Rule 29 thereof. It is the stand of the respondents that petitioner should exhaust the aforesaid remedy. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on going through relevant provisions of the Rules takes a stand that petitioner would file revision application within four weeks from today. It is contended that this Court may direct the competent authority to consider the proposed revision application of the petitioner on 2 merit. Having heard the parties, this Court disposes of this writ application by following order: Let the petitioner invoke the provision contained in rule 29 of the Rules within four weeks from today annexing therewith a copy of the present order. If the application/revision is preferred in the aforesaid manner, the appropriate authority of the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merit in accordance with law. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )