IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15828 of 2009 DEVDAS (BAL SANKHYA NO. 035190071, EX CONSTABLE G.D.) S/O SRI KRISHNA RAM R/O VILL BALBATHRA, P.S. ARA(TOWN), DISTT- BHOJPUR-----PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA , NEW DELHI 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (C.R.P.F.) 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL - CUM- REVISIONAL AUTHORITY, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, (C.R.P.F.) PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL - CUM- APPELLATE AUTHORITY, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE(C.R.P.F.) MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE COMMANDANT -116, BN- CUM - DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, CRPF THROUGH 56 A.P.O 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMANDANT 116 BN- CUM- ENQUIRY OFFICER , C.R.P.F.---RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02. 20.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as Constable, general duty in the CRPF was proceeded against and has been dismissed from the force under order dated 23.10.2008, Annexure-7, against which he filed appeal which was considered by the D.I.G., CRPF, Muzaffarpur and dismissed under order dated 4.2.2009, Annexure-8. Against the appellate order petitioner preferred revision, which was also dismissed by the I.G., CRPF, Patna under order dated 7.8.2009, Annexure-9. 3. Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid three orders by filing the present writ application. It is submitted on his behalf that close perusal of the appellate and revisional order, Annexures-8 and 9 would indicate that the two orders have been passed by the same person, namely, Sri C.B.S. Rathore as D.I.G., CRPF, Muzaffarpur and later as I.G. It is submitted that such disposal of the appeal and revision by the same person is wholly arbitrary and petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity of being heard by another individual. Shri C.B.S. Rathore while functioning as D.I.G. considered the appeal and - 2 - later as I.G. considered the revision and has taken the same view which he has taken as appellate authority and again affirmed the same views as revisional authority. From close perusal of the aforesaid two orders dated, 4.2.2009 and 7.8.2009, Annexures-8 and 9 it is evident that Shri C.B.S. Rathore has considered the appeal as also the revision of the petitioner which is impermissible and amounts to violating the principle of natural justice. 4. In the circumstances, both the appellate order dated 4.2.2009 and the revisional order dated 7.8.2009, Annexures-8 and 9 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the D.I.G., C.R.P.F., Muzaffarpur to reconsider the matter without being prejudiced by the earlier order passed by Shri C.B.S. Rathore. It goes without saying that in the event, the appeal of the petitioner is allowed he should be given the consequential benefit of the order allowing the appeal. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)