IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.608 of 2010 1. RISHIKESH KUMAR S/O SRI RAMAKANT PRASAD SINGH R/O MOH- PANDARAK, P.S- PANDARAK, DISTT- PATNA Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, C.R.P.F. BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, C.R.P.F. MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE COMMANDANT, 133, BATTALION, C.R.P.F. SECTOR-II, DHURWA, RANCHI (JHARKHAND) ----------- For the petitioner : M/S Rajeev Kumar Singh, Onkar Kumar & Alok Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh. C.G.C. ==== 4. 19.02.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India who has filed supplementary counter affidavit which is taken on record. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time was serving as Constable (General Duty) in the 133 Battalion, C.R.P.F., Dhurba, Ranchi. He has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 03.11.2008, Annexure-1, whereunder the Commandant has passed orders for removal of the petitioner from service in a departmental proceeding as he was found guilty of the charge of misbehaviour and using filthy language against the Head Constable entrusted with the duty to distribute work amongst the Constables during the night. Petitioner is further aggrieved by the appellate order dated 9.2.2009, as contained in Annexure-2 passed by the D.I.G. and the revisional order passed by the I.G. dated 14.10.2009, as contained in Annexure-3. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that punishment of removal from service is too harsh as the charges alleged against him is only misconduct of behaviour and for - 2 - such misconduct of behaviour punishment of removal ought not to have been awarded. He further submitted that the appellate and the revisional order has been passed by Sri C.B.S. Rathore as D.I.G. and I.G. and thus vitiated and indicative of the bias which Shri Rathore had for the petitioner. 4. Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the prayer. He states that petitioner being a member of the paramilitary force is duty bound to demonstrate discipline of the highest order but the manner in which he misbehaved with the Head Constable entrusted with the duty to assign work to the Constables should not be let of lightly and the removal order passed against the petitioner be affirmed. 5. Learned counsel for the Union, however, could not dispute the fact that the appellate and revisional order was passed by the same officer, Sri C.B.S. Rathore as D.I.G. and I.G. 6. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India, I am of the view that Sri C.B.S. Rathore having considered the appeal and passed the appellate order ought not to have considered the revision application and passed the revisional order. The fact that Sri Rathore also proceeded to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner is indicative of the fact that Sri Rathore wanted to ensure that the petitioner does not get any relief while availing the internal remedies. In the circumstances, while setting aside the appellate/revisional order dated 9.2.2009 and 14.10.2009, Annexures 2 and 3, I direct that the appeal of the petitioner be considered by the - 3 - D.I.G. , C.R.P.F. and if there is occasion for the petitioner to prefer revision then the revision application be considered by the I.G. other than Sri C.B.S. Rathore. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the incident had occurred while the petitioner was ill and had gone out side the camp to procure medicine with the permission of the Havildar who made a report against him and such aspect of the matter be also considered by the appellate authority. The appeal be considered by the appellate authority as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of its fresh filing along with a copy of this order. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)