THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.15425 of 2010 ORDER: The younger brother of the petitioner, by name B.T.Kale, was working as Head Constable (H.C.) in the C.R.P.F. Group Centre at Chandrayanagutta. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, alleging that he used filthy language against a Sub-Inspector and manhandled him on 15.11.2009 at 8.50 hours, while performing duties in a Mess. No explanation was submitted to the charge-sheet. The disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer. In the enquiry also, the H.C. did not participate, nor did he adduce any evidence. A report was filed on 31.03.2010, holding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved. Taking the same into account, the disciplinary authority, passed an order, dated 24.05.2010, dismissing the H.C. from service. The same is challenged in Writ Petition. The petitioner contends that his brother is not mentally sound and he filed the Writ Petition on his behalf. It is stated that the disciplinary proceedings are violative of the principles of natural justice and though the H.C. was suffering from mental ill-health, the enquiry was conducted unilaterally and an order of dismissal was passed. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit. It is stated that the H.C. was very much hale and healthy throughout the disciplinary proceedings, and to cover up his lapses, his family members are initiating proceedings, one after the other. It is also stated that there is an effective alternative remedy of appeal. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Writ Petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner is not the employee. In case the H.C. was mentally unsound, any person, representing on his behalf, ought to have taken permission of this Court, to represent him and instituted the proceedings. In such an event, the writ petition is to be filed in the name of himself, and is represented by his next friend. Since such an exercise was not taken, the writ petition is not maintainable, at all. Be that as it may, the aggrieved member of the Force can avail the remedy of appeal under Rule 28 of the C.R.P.F. Rules. The Appellate Authority can not only verify the record, but also examine as to whether the punishment imposed therein is commensurate with the gravity of the charge. It may choose to impose any other alternative punishment, in the place of dismissal. That would, however, be possible, if only the employee himself appears before the Appellate Authority and presents the appeal. In case he needs any help, his family members can accompany him. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the Head Constable, viz., B.T.Kale, to present the appeal against the order of dismissal within a period of four weeks from today. If it is presented in person, or through any person representing on his behalf, the Appellate Authority shall entertain the same without raising any objection, as to limitation, and shall pass appropriate orders on merits, within a period of two months from the date of presentation. It is axiomatic that the interim order passed in the writ petition stands dissolved. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25.10.2010. GJ