IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7949 of 2007 Ayodhaya Singh son of Harihar Singh resident of village Gopi Bigha, P.O. Jamuhar, P.S. Dehri-on-sone, Dist. Rohtas. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi-100003. 2. Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force Muzaffarpur Range, Muzaffarpur. 3. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, 45th Battalion, Muzaffarpur Range,Muzaffarpur. 4. Commandant,45th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Motihari. 5. Deputy Commandant, 45th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Motihari. 6. Company Commander, 1/45 Bn. Central Reserve Police Force, Kinzar. --Respondents. ------- 03 15.09.2011 Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel for the Union of India and its official. Petitioner while service the Central Reserve Police Force ( for short ‘CRPF’) as constable GD was proceeded against departmentally for diverse charges including his unauthorized absence from the service. It appears on perusal of the order (Annexure-6) that he was declared deserter and thereafter proceeding was taken up and decided ex-parte and he was inflicted punishment of removal from service. Learned counsel made diverse submissions in order to satisfy the Court that the said order was passed without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the proceeding inasmuch as no notice was served on him and as such the petitioner remained unaware of the said proceeding. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, 2 submits that the Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955 ( for short ‘Rules’) itself provides a statutory remedy wherein all the issues of fact and law can be raised by the petitioner which are required to be considered in accordance with law. Since the petitioner has statutory remedy where issues of fact and law can be raised and appellate authority can consider the same with reference to the records, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extra ordinary and writ jurisdiction in the matter and permits the petitioner to file appeal in terms of Rule 28 of the Rules within a period of 05 weeks from today together with a copy of the present order whereafter the respondent appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal on its own merit in accordance with law as quickly as possible. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)