IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20917 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, CT/BUG 913108821, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.K.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE V.VIJAYASREE, AGED 34 YEARS "SREE NILAYAM", CHEMMAKKAD.PO, ANCHAMKUTTY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL(P),SOUTHERN SECTOR, CRPF, HYDERABAD, ANDRA PRADESH. 3. THE DIG P, GROUP CENTRE, CRPF, RANGA REDDY, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE COMMANDANT, 113 BN CRPF, CHATHA, JAMMU AND KASHMIR. MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.20917 of 2010 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P7 order, the petitioner, a member of Central Reserved Police Force, was dismissed from service. Against that order, he filed Ext.P8 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, the appeal was considered by the 2nd respondent and was rejected by Ext.P10 dated 16/06/2010. Thereupon the petitioner filed Ext.P11 before the 1st respondent and in this writ petition, he challenges Exts.P7 & P10. 2. Going by Rule 29 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, against an order of appellate authority, a revision can be preferred to the next superior authority. Going by the hierarchy as indicated in the 2nd proviso to the Rule, the next superior authority to the Inspector General is either the Director General or the Additional Director General. Therefore, the petitioner has a statutory remedy against Ext.P10. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of leaving it WP(C) No.20917/2010 -2- open to the petitioner to prefer revision as contemplated under Rule 29 of the CRPF Rules, 1955 before the next superior authority, which is the next superior to the 2nd respondent. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg