IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No. 401 of 2011 In CWJC No. 17585 of 2009 With I.A. No. 1849 of 2011 And I.A. No. 1850 of 2011 =================================================== 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, New Delhi, 2. The Inspector General, C.R.P.F., Bihar Sector, Bailey Road, Patna, 3. The Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, Bailey Road, Patna, 4. The Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, 5. The Commandant, 133 BN, CRPF C/O 56 A.P.O., 6. The Commandant, 95 BN, CRPF, Pahariya Mandi, Banaras, U.P. ……… Respondents …… Appellants Versus Suresh Kumar Singh, S/o Harihar Prasad Singh, R/o Village – Barharwa, P.O. – Barharwa, P.S. – Majorganj, Dist. – Sitamarhi, Head Constable No. 901140313, presently posted in 95 Battalion, CRPF Pahariya Mandi, Banaras, Uttar Pradesh …………… Writ Petitioner ..… Respondent. =================================================== APPEARANCE For the appellants: Mr Mithlesh Kr. Rai, Sr.C.G.C. and Mr. Shiv Kumar, Addl. C.G.C. =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 2. 14.03.2011. Re. LPA No. 401/2001, IA No. 1849/2011 and I.A. No. 1850/2011. This Appeal is preferred by the Union of India and others against the judgment and order dated 28th January 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 17585 of 2009. The respondent – writ petitioner, a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, was ordered to be removed from service on the charge that he put political pressure to get his transfer order cancelled. He was also alleged to have impersonated a Member of Parliament for that purpose. The appellate authority held that it was a case of no evidence and reduced the punishment to confinement of the delinquent to Quarter Guard for 28 days with forfeiture of pay and allowances and that the intervening period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement was ordered to be treated as extraordinary leave. The respondent – writ petitioner challenged the order of punishment before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge recorded that the imposition of punishment in teeth of the finding that it was a case of no evidence was not sustainable. Accordingly, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has set aside the order of punishment made by the appellate authority. Therefore, the present Appeal. The Appeal is filed 147 days beyond the period of limitation. In view of the above facts we do not find any 3 merit in the present Appeal. The Appeal and the Interlocutory Applications are disposed of. Dilip ( R.M. Doshit, CJ ) ( Jyoti Saran, J )