IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6714 of 2010 1. KISHORE KUMAR S/O BAL SUNDAR PASWAN R/O VILL.- TETARI, P.O.- NADAWAN, P.S.- DHANARUA, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, NEW DELHI 2. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SECURITY ACADEMY C.I.S.F., P.O.- HAKIMPET, DISTT.- RANGA REDDY, HYDERABAD- 78 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SECURITY ACADEMY, C.I.S.F., P.O.- HAKIMPET, DISTT.- RANGA REDDY, HYDERABAD-78 4. SENIOR COMMANDANT (TRAINING) NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SECURITY ACADEMY, P.O.- HAKIMPET, DISTT.- RANGA REDDY, HYDERABAD - 78 5. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, EASTERN ZONE, HEAD QUARTER, PATNA ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. Shiv Kumar, C.G.C., Advocate. ====== 3. 20.5.2010. Under orders dated 20.4.2010 this Court adjourned this matter by four weeks so as to enable the counsel for the Union of India to seek instruction but instructions have not been received so far, yet this Court has proceeded to hear and finally dispose of the matter as the facts are very much evident from the impugned order dated 20.11.2009, Annexure-1 itself. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20th November, 2009, Annexure-1, whereunder his appeal said to have been filed in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 24.8.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 10485 of 2009, Annexure-10 has been dismissed holding that his earlier appeal filed against the termination order was dismissed by the Director, C.I.S.F., Hyderabad on 3.8.2009 and the second appeal which has been filed in compliance of the order dated 24.8.2009 of the High Court is unsigned and undated and the same - 2 - being the second appeal received beyond the time fixed under order dated 24.8.2009 could not be entertained. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the aforesaid order on two grounds, first, he states that the appeal in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 24.8.2009 was to be filed within 15 days from 24.8.2009 and the petitioner filed his appeal on 26.8.2009 and in support of such fact he has produced one receipt before this Court to submit that the appeal was sent under registered letter no. 2160 dated 26.8.2009 and with reference to the said receipt it is submitted that petitioner had complied the direction of the High Court to file the appeal within 15 days from 24.8.2009. As regards the other ground for dismissing the appeal that the appeal is undated and unsigned learned counsel submitted that from the memo of appeal, Annexure-9 it will appear that the appeal is dated and also bears the signature of the appellant. I regret to observe that such submission is wholly devoid of merit as perusal of Annexure-9 would indicate that the same has neither been dated nor the same has been signed as the three dates which is mentioned over the last page of the said memo of appeal are the dates of some other order i.e. order dated 3.8.2009, 24.8.2009 and 11th September, 2009. It does not bear any date of issue/dispatch. The signature of the appellant is also missing from Annexure-9. It is, thus, evident that the appeal which was filed by the petitioner under registered post on 26.8.2009 does not bear any date and signature of the petitioner. Even assuming that the appeal was filed with date and signature yet it could not have been entertained - 3 - unless the earlier order rejecting his appeal passed by the Director, C.I.S.F. NISA, Hyderabad on 3.8.2009 is set aside. The authorities in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 46 of the CISF Rules could not have entertained the second appeal and rightly dismissed the appeal filed in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 24.8.2009. Unless petitioner challenges the order dated 3.8.2009 dismissing his appeal and the said order is set aside by any competent court the authorities of the CISF, in my opinion, are not empowered to entertain his second appeal. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)