IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1237 of 2010 SANJEEV KUMAR S/O SRI RAM PRATAP RAM R/O VILL.- CHERIA BARIYARPUR, P.O.- SIRIPUR, PIN CODE-85113, DISTT.- BEGUSARAI (BIHAR) Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTER OF HOME DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, NEW DELHI 3. I.G. CRPF, BIHAR BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. THE D.I.G. CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR 5. THE COMMANDANT, 116 CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, 56A, P.O.- PAHALGANO,(JAMMU AND KASHMIR) ----------- 02. 15.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Commandant-116 battalion, CRPF, whereunder he has been dismissed from the post of constable general duty in the battalion. He is also aggrieved by the appellate order dated 1.6.2009 passed by the D.I.G., CRPF, Muzaffarpur, whereunder the appeal filed against the dismissal order dated 18.12.2008 has been rejected. The two orders are contained in Annexures-10 and 11 respectively to this application. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was allowed leave for the period between 9.1.2008 till 8.3.2008 but as he failed to join the battalion he was proceeded against in an ex parte proceeding for unauthorized absence for the period between 10.3.2008 till 14.10.2008 and was dismissed on the charge of unauthorized absence for the aforesaid period. It is further submitted that charge of unauthorized absence levelled against him is not true as during the said period he was attending on his ailing mother, who was critically ill, petitioner was also under severe strain and depression. The factum - 2 - of his mother’s illness as also the depression undergone by him is evident from the prescription and the certificates issued by the doctors who attended on his mother as also the petitioner during the aforesaid period. It is also submitted that communication dated 21.3.2008 and 31.3.2008 whereunder he was directed to produce the document(s) in support of his plea of mother’s illness was not received by him otherwise in compliance of the directions contained in those two instructions, he would have produced the medical certificate and all other relevant documents before the competent authority so as to convince the authorities about the factum of illness of his mother. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he had appeared before the authorities during the conduction of the ex parte proceeding on 15/16.10.2008 but the authorities did not serve him the copy of the memo of charge as also did not allow him to take part in the inquiry proceeding. Had the authorities given him such opportunity the occasion to pass the impugned orders may not have arisen as he would have explained before the authorities that his mother was critically ill and on account of his mother’s illness he could not report for duty after expiry of the leave. Against the impugned order of dismissal as also the appellate order, Annexures-10 and 11 petitioner has the alternative remedy of revision before the I.G., CRPF. 4. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to avail the remedy of revision before the I.G., CRPF and place before him the prescription and other contemporaneous documents like pathological report and cash memo showing purchase of the medicine in the light of the - 3 - instructions of the doctor contained in the prescription and after perusal of the documents if the I.G., CRPF is satisfied that the plea of illness of his mother and self taken by the petitioner is bonafide, he should set aside the two orders, Annexures-10 and 11 and reinstate the petitioner in accordance with law. The revision in compliance of my order be filed before the I.G. along with a copy of this order within 30 days from today and the I.G. should dispose of the revision within 60 days from the date of its receipt. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)