IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10394 of 2010 1. DIWAKAR SUDHANSHU, S/O SRI RAM SHARAN PRASAD YADAV, R/O VILLAGE ARARIA BALHA, P.O. BALHA, P.S. PARBATTA, DISTRICT-KHAGARIA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, HOME (POLICE) DEPARTMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,BIHAR,PATNA. 4. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA ZONE,PATNA. 5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,CENTRAL RANGE, PATNA. 6. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,PATNA. ----------- 2. 11.05.2011 By Annexure -11 dated 22.07.2008 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, petitioner was dismissed from service on account of his unauthorized absence from duty for more than 5 years. By Annexure -2 dated 18.05.2010, he was informed about rejection of his appeal. Thereafter petitioner filed an application as representation before the Director General of Police, a copy whereof is Annexure -9 in the writ application but by mistake, in the subject of the application he labelled it as ‘appeal’. Counter affidavit has been filed in the case. Along with the counter affidavit, a letter dated 26.09.2010 addressed to the petitioner has been annexed 2 as Annexure- A, by which he has been informed that since his appeal had already been rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police ,Central Range, Patna, the memo of appeal filed before the Director General of Police was not maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the application as contained in Annexure -9 was a memorial to the Director general of Police, which was wrongly labelled as ‘appeal’. He submits that the same should have been considered by the respondents as ‘memorial’, provisions of which exists in the Bihar Police Manual, and should have been considered on merits. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since in his application the petitioner has labelled it as an ‘appeal’, the same was rejected as no provision for second appeal is available in the Police Manual. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and looking into the record, this court is of the view that the application filed by the petitioner before the Director General of Police on 18.05.2010, as contained in Annexure -9, should have been considered as a ‘memorial’ 3 appreciating the fact that the petitioner by mistake may have labelled it as an appeal. It is settled law that if jurisdiction lies in an authority to exercise his powers, the same would not become nugatory on account of wrong labelling of an application before him by an aggrieved party . In the circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to respondents to treat the application addressed to the Director General of Police, a copy whereof is contained in Annexure -9, as memorial and consider the same on merits and dispose it of in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Nitesh (Jayanandan Singh, J.)