IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6285 of 2009 Mohan Kumar Singh, Son of Late Kusheshwar Singh, Village & P.O.- Gopalpur, P.S.-Nayagaon, District-Chhapra (Saran), Bihar. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Union of India, through Secretary, Home Department, Central Government, New Delhi. 2. The Inspector General of Police, Bihar Sector Headquarters, Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar Sector, Patna, Bihar. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar Sector, Patna, Bihar. 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Sindri, Dhanbad. 5. Commandant 118 Battalian, Central Reserve Police Force, C/o-56 APO, Srinagar, Jammu Kashmir. -Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. V.N. Sahay, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. Sudhir Singh, Assistant Solicitor General. ------------ 04 31.07.2009 The petitioner was a driver in Central Reserve Police Force (C.R.P.F.). He has been dismissed and his so called appeal also dismissed. This has brought him to this Court. A counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Assistant Solicitor General. Heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. On ground of illness of his wife at his village home petitioner took leave. He sought extension of leave, which was granted, but then he stopped communicating with his regiment. He was then declared as a deserter and proceedings for termination of his service was taken. Notices were sent, there was no response, ex parte enquiry was - 2 - conducted and report submitted. The enquiry report went to the petitioner on 02.11.2005 that was again not responded. Accordingly, on 26.12.2005 petitioner was held to be deserter and dismissed. Petitioner then in the year 2008 applied to the Inspector General, C.R.P.F. for directing authorities to supply him papers against his dismissal that was treated to be an appeal against dismissal and it was also dismissed but papers were not given. He then applied under Right to Information Act (R.T.I. Act) for all his papers of disciplinary proceeding relating to his dismissal. The same was responded by letter dated 19.02.2009 (Annexure-8), wherein it is stated that there being the exemption under R.T.I. Act in terms of Section 24 thereof, no information can be supplied to the petitioner. This indeed is surprising. This was not a matter of national security, this was purely disciplinary proceeding matter related to the petitioner’s dismissal. How even the authorities would claim any immunity in this regard is not understood. Even in normal course all these papers had to be supplied to the petitioner even without demand. This I have noted only for the purpose of putting the record straight that C.R.P.F. has no immunity in these matters. The claim of immunity under Section 24 of the R.T.I. Act is nothing but harassment to the petitioner and had no legal authority. Petitioner has brought on record that in fact he had been writing to the authorities that his wife was seriously ill, she was treated at different places and ultimately died. As a consequence of death he was trouble by his family which ultimately laid to a criminal case being filed against him in which he was in prison for over two years that is - 3 - from 7th October 2005 to 29th November 2007. This Court directed his release on bail. He submits that it is because of this that he could neither participate in the enquiry proceedings nor before the Disciplinary Authority. The fact that the petitioner was behind the bar in those years cannot be denied. It is matter of record. After the dismissal order when petitioner sought copies of reports and other documents, he was not filing any appeal he was appealing to the Inspector General, C.R.P.F. to ensure that he is given papers but unfortunately that on some mistaken notion was treated as an appeal and dismissed without papers made available to him. Thus, it would be seen from the facts aforesaid that though petitioner was facing difficult times which ultimately laid to his arrest and detention in custody for over two years the proceedings were concluded behind his back and even though appeal is said to have been dismissed when no appeal was filed. In view of these facts, in my view, interference by this Court is called for. The order of dismissal dated 26.12.2005 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the stage of enquiry. Petitioner would be furnished all papers which he requires apart from papers which are already appended to the counter affidavit filed by C.R.P.F. Authorities would take a decision in the mater in accordance with law. However, as petitioner has been absent from service since 18.11.2004, he would not be entitled to any back wages for that period, other payments if any would abide by findings by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority would be well advised to conclude the proceedings within three months, subject to petitioner cooperating and - 4 - being permitted to cooperate. The consequence is the so called appeal which is dismissed would stand cancelled. As of today during period of enquiry and departmental proceedings the petitioner would be deemed to be under suspension. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)