IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1996 of 2010. 1. The Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi 2. The Director General, C.R.P.F., C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi 3. The Additional D.I.G.P., C.R.P.F., Group Centre, Mokamaghat, Patna Appellants. Versus 1. Shambhu Kumar Pandey S/O Late Siya Lal Pandey R/O Vill.- Mali Nagar, P.S.- Chakmaisi, Distt.- Samastipur … Respondent. ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Sr.pannel counsel. Mr. Shiv Kumar, C.G.C. For the Respondent : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Shiv Kumar Prabhakar,Adv. 3. 11.11.2011 Heard the parties in respect of Limitation vide I.A.No. 10416 of 2010 as well as on merits. For the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid Interlocutory application, the delay of 197 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the I.A. is, accordingly, allowed. On merits we have perused the prayer made in the writ petition as swell as the order under appeal whereby the prayer of the writ petitioner to direct the Director General, CRPF to consider and dispose of his memorial/ representation has been allowed and the Director General has been directed to consider the memorial/representation of the writ petitioner, respondent herein dated 24th July 2009 in accordance with law. 2 The main controversy between the parties is on account of a further observation of the writ court that the Director General will consider the memorial/representation in accordance with law and he shall modify the dismissal by imposing punishment other than dismissal/ removal/ compulsory retirement. Since the memorial/representation of the petitioner against the order of dismissal which has been confirmed by the appellate authority is yet to be decided on merit by the Director General, we are of the view that it would not be proper to go into the relevant issues, such as, gravity of the charges and whether it is proportionate to the punishment. Such consideration at the present juncture must be left for the Director General who is to consider the memorial/representation in accordance with law. We are also of the view that the writ court should have only issued general direction for consideration of the memorial/representation in accordance with law within a reasonable time, without limiting the discretion of the Director General in respect of punishment imposed and upon the writ petitioner. Hence, the appeal is allowed by only partially modifying the order of the writ court whereby a direction 3 has been given to the Director General to modify the dismissal by imposing the punishment other than dismissal/removal and compulsory retirement. Such direction is set aside. As a result, the Director General, C.R.P.F. will now consider the memorial/representation dated 24th July 2009 in accordance with law within a reasonable time, such as, three months. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)