IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5904 of 2010 1. MUMTAZ ALI S/O MD. SAYED ALI PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL-HAJINAGAR, P.O.SALMARI, P.S.AZAMNAGAR, DISTT-KATIHAR Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAY RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHAIRMAN , RAILWAY BOARD RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY, MALIGAON, ASSAM 4. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY , KATIHAR 5. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY, ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION , ASSAM 6. THE DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY, ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION , ASSAM 7. THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER , NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY ALIPUR DUAR JUNCTION, ASSAM 8. THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER , RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY, MALIGAON, ASSAM 9. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION, ASSAM 10. THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER , RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY, KATIHAR 11. THE ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER , RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY, ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION, ASSAM 12. INSPECTOR OF RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION/NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY, ALIPURDUAR JUNCTION, ASSAM ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Sanjiv Krishna Bariar, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate 02/ 09.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Union of India. 2. Petitioner, who at the relevant time, served as Constable in the Railway Protection Force, was removed from service under orders dated 3.7.2000, Annexure-2 to this application. Against the removal order dated 3.7.2000, Annexure-2, petitioner has filed appeal which is dated 2 24.12.2009 and has been addressed to the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, North Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Assam, Respondent no.8 and is contained in Annexure-14 to this application. It appears, the said memo of appeal has been sent to the appellate authority under registered post. Photo copy of the dispatch receipt is also available with the records of the writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the initial order of removal was not served on the petitioner and he has filed the belated appeal after obtaining the removal order by applying under the Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the prayer. He states that the removal order was served on the petitioner and he accepted the same, but later on decided to challenge the same by filing appeal and for such purpose he approached the authorities under the Act and having obtained the removal order by applying under the Act, appeal was filed on 24.12.2009, which is required to have been dismissed on the ground of limitation itself as the appeal was required to be filed within one month of the service of the removal order on the petitioner. 5. Without going into the correctness or otherwise of the submission made on behalf of the parties, I dispose of the writ application with direction to the Chief Security 3 Commissioner, Respondent no.8 to consider the appeal of the petitioner against the removal order dated 3.7.2000, Annexure-2 to this application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)