Jharkhand High Court
Hriday Narayan Tripathy vs The Union Of India on 15 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2023:JHHC:891
2023:JHHC:891
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S). No. 816 of 2017
---------
Hriday Narayan Tripathy, son of Shri OM Prakash Tripathy, Resident of Village-Udarai Po- Udarai, Ps- Dullahpur, District-Gajipur, (Uttar Pradesh) Pin- 2756202, Erstwhile Constable/G.D., Post No. 060812196, B/133, Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, H.E.C, Sector- 2, Dhurva, Po & PS- Dhurva, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) ............... Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Union of India.
2. The Inspector General, Central reserve Police Force, Jharkhand Sector, CRPF, TAC-Latehar, Ranchi (Jharkhand)-834004
3. Deputy Inspector General Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Ranchi Range Group Centre Campus, Sambo, Ranchi (Jharkhand)
4. The Commandant 133th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, H.E.C, Sector- 2, Dhurva, Po & PS- Dhurva, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) Respondents.
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Adv Mr. Vishnu Kumar Mahto, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC Mr. Bajrang Kumar, AC to ASGI
----------
08/Dated: 15th April, 2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J:
Prayer:
1. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
I.For quashing of the order dated 14.10.2016 passed by respondent no. 2 who has been pleased to dismiss the Page | 1 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891 revision filed by the Petitioner against the order of Appeal passed by the Respondent No. 3;
ii) For Setting aside the order No. R- Terah-133/2016 dated 09.07.2016 passed by the Deputy Inspector General Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Ranchi Range, Group Centre Campus Sambo, Ranchi (Jharkhand) in which the Respondent No. 3 has dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner;
iii) For setting aside the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Respondent No. 4, The Commandant 133th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, H.E.C, Sector- 2, Dhurva, Po & PS- Dhurva, District- Ranchi in which the Petitioner has been terminated from the service on the ground that he had concealed the information from the department with regard to criminal proceeding is pending against him;
iv). For, direction upon the respondents for reinstatement of the petitioner into the service on the post of constable/G. D, Force No. 060812196 with all consequential due;
Factual Matrix:
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which needs to be enumerated which reads as under:
3. The petitioner was appointed as constable/G.D in the Central Reserve Police Force on 13.02.2006 and was Page | 2 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891 posted at Sindri (Jharkhand) and later transferred to Tripura and Manipur and lastly in the year 2012 he was transferred to Dhurva, Ranchi, where he reported on 21.08.2012.
4. It is stated that before the service in the CRPF, the petitioner got married in the year 2005 but immediately after the marriage his wife left the house of the petitioner and started to live with her parents and refused to stay with the petitioner. Subsequently, a criminal case being Dullpur P.S. Case No. 380 of 2010 under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 498A IPC and under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was initiated against the petitioner. It is stated that though in the said case, he was in judicial custody for three days but later vide judgment dated 29.08.2013 he was acquitted in the said criminal case. Further, his wife had filed another case under Protection of Women form Domestic Violence Act, 2005 being Misc. Cr. Case No. 203 of 2011, in which also the petitioner was acquitted in terms of the compromise arrived between the parties. Her wife had also filed case for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. which also ended in compromise.
5. It is further stated that in the Verification Roll filled up on 18.12.2011, the petitioner left out the Column No. 6(d), thereby he concealed his marital status. Further, he Page | 3 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891 also left Column No. 12(a) and 12(b) unfilled whereby he was supposed to intimate whether he was arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention or bound down/fined, convicted by a Court of law or any offence or any case pending against him in any Court of law.
6. Therefore, an explanation vide show cause dated 22.08.2015 was sought for by the petitioner and a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2016 for furnishing incorrect declaration regarding his marital status as also criminal case pending against him. In the said departmental proceeding charge was framed on the count that though he was married at the time of joining the services of CRPF as also criminal case was pending against him, but this fact has been concealed by him and he did not fill up column of service book/verification roll mentioning the name of his wife. Further, there was criminal case(s) filed by her wife for which he was in custody for few days, which amounts to violation of relevant rules of CRPF Rules.
7. The petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding. The enquiry officer submitted report, basing upon which, he was punished with compulsory retirement vide order dated 06.05.2016.
Page | 4 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891
8. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, Jharkhand Sector, Ranchi, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2016 and the punishment of 'compulsory retirement' was converted to 'removal from service'.
9. Aggrieved with the order passed by the original as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred revision, which also stand dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2016.
10. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner has made application for his appointment on the post of Constable under the respondents-Central Reserve Police Force. He was declared successful and jointed the service in the year 2006.
11. While service as such a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2016 for furnishing incorrect declaration in the verification roll regarding his marital status and criminal case pending against him at the time of joining the service.
12. The petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding. The enquiry officer submitted report, basing upon which, the punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded to him vide order dated 06.05.2016.
13. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, CRPF, Jharkhand Sector, Ranchi, which was dismissed vide order dated Page | 5 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891 09.07.2016 and the punishment of 'compulsory retirement' was converted to 'removal from service'.
14. Aggrieved with the order passed by the original as well as the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred revision, which also stand dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2016.
15. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the order passed by the original authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
Submission on behalf of petitioner:
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that he is not questioning the order passed by the disciplinary authority rather he is satisfied with the order passed by the original authority, who has imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, in the pretext of the admitted fact that on the date when the petitioner was inducted in service he was married and criminal case with respect to family dispute was pending against him, however, in the said criminal case, he was acquitted. Such concession has been given by learned counsel for the petitioner at Bar.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after confining the prayer, has questioned the legality and propriety of the order passed by the appellate authority and the Page | 6 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891 revisional authority and has submitted that it was none of the business of the appellate authority to reverse the order of 'compulsory retirement' to 'removal from service' that too on the pretext of counting of the period of ten years of service and it has been observed that order passed by the disciplinary authority is based on the wrong notion that the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service but the petitioner on the date of award has completed 10 years of service.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the compulsory retirement or the removal from service is the major punishment, as per the list of punishment as enlisted under Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, 1955 and as such irrespective of the entitlement to get the pensionary benefit in consequence of compulsory retirement, the same cannot be a ground for conversion of the order of 'compulsory retirement' to that of 'removal from service', as the ground has been taken by the appellate authority in its order.
19. The revisional authority has also upheld the said order. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority could have come out with the finding by the change of the order of punishment of 'compulsory retirement' to that of 'removal from service' on the gravity of nature of the misconduct Page | 7 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891 said to be committed but not on the ground that the period of service rendered by the petitioner, before the order of compulsory retirement has wrongly been calculated.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the aforesaid ground has submitted that the order passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority on the aforesaid count is not sustainable in the eye of law. Submission on behalf of respondent:
21. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned ASGI appearing for the petitioners-railways has submitted that furnishing the wrong information at the time of joining the service by the applicant is the gross misconduct but in all fairness, he has submitted that the ground upon which the appellate authority has converted the order of compulsory retirement, as passed by the original authority, to that of removal from service, as referred in paragraph 5, is not the purpose of Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules.
Analysis:
22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the writ petition as also the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent.
23. This Court is conscious with the fact that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has Page | 8 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891 got limited scope to interfere with the decision so taken by the administrative authority barring few circumstances, and in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also carved out the guideline to which nature of cases, the interference is to be shown by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India and in which cases, the interference is not permissible, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, relevant paragraph 12 & 13 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
Page | 9 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
24. It is thus evident that it is not that there is absolute bar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in showing interference with the administrative decision of the disciplinary authority rather the same can be interfered with depending upon the facts and circumstances the particular case is coming under the guideline formulated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (supa) and others cases, as referred hereinabove, or not.
Page | 10 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891
25. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Allahabad Bank v. Krishna Narayan Tewari [(2017) 2 SCC 308]; wherein the law has been settled regarding the scope of judicial review which has been held to be very limited but it has been laid down therein that it is equally true that in a case where the disciplinary authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, the writ Court would be justified, if not duty bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases, for ready reference, relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment is quoted as under:
"7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions at the Bar. It is true that a writ court is very slow in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by a departmental authority on the basis of evidence available on record. But it is equally true that in a case where the disciplinary authority records a finding that is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever or a finding which no reasonable person could have arrived at, the writ court would be justified if not duty-bound to examine the matter and grant relief in appropriate cases. The writ court will certainly interfere with disciplinary enquiry or the resultant orders passed by the competent authority on that basis if the enquiry itself was vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case. Non-application of mind by the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority, non- recording of reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them are also grounds on which the writ courts are justified in interfering with the orders of punishment. The High Court has, in the case at hand, found all these infirmities in the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The respondent's case that the enquiry was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence in defence Page | 11 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891 has not been effectively rebutted by the appellant. More importantly the disciplinary authority does not appear to have properly appreciated the evidence nor recorded reasons in support of his conclusion. To add insult to injury the appellate authority instead of recording its own reasons and independently appreciating the material on record, simply reproduced the findings of the disciplinary authority. All told, the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have faltered in the discharge of their duties resulting in miscarriage of justice. The High Court was in that view right in interfering with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority."
26. Ground has been taken on behalf of petitioner questioning the reasoning which has been assigned by the appellate authority while changing the view taken by the original authority that there is wrong calculation of the period of service rendered by the petitioner which is core of the issue that is to be considered by this Court.
27. The law is well settled that any punishment, if enlisted in the list of punishment in the Discipline and Appeal Rules, it is to be inflicted upon the delinquent employee on the basis of proved charge. There is no deviation from the list of punishment irrespective of its consequence. Certainly, the compulsory retirement, removal or the dismissal has been enlisted under the list of major punishment, as would be evident from Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, which is quoted as under:
"27.Procedure for the award of punishments .--(a) [The punishments shown as items 1 to 11 in column 2 of the table] below may be inflicted or non--Gazetted Officers and men of the various ranks shown in each of the headings of columns 3 to 6, Page | 12 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891 by the authorities named below such headings under the conditions mentioned in column 7.
Sl. Punishment Subedar Sub- Others Consts. Remarks
No. (Inspector) Insp except &
ector Const. enrolled
& followers
enrolled
folowers
1. Dismissal or DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. To be
removal from inflicted
the Force after formal
departmental
enquiry
2. Reduction to a DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt.
lower time-scale
of pay or service
3. Reduction to a DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt.
lower stage in
the time-scale
of pay for a
specified period
4. Compulsory DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt.
Retirement
5. Fine of any DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt.
amount not
exceeding one
month's pay
and allowances
6. Confinement in - - Comtd. To be
the Quarter inflicted
Guard after formal
exceeding seven departmental
days but more enquiry
than
twentyeight
days with or
without
punishment
drill or extra
guard fatigue or
other duty
7. Stoppage of DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt.
increment
8. Removal from DIGP DIGP Comdt. Comdt. May be
any office of inflicted
distinction or without a
special formal
departmental
emolument in enquiry
the Force
9. Censure Comdt. Com Comdt. A
dt. Comdt.
or Coy
Comdr.
10. Confinement to - -
quarter Guard
for not more
than seven
days with or
without
punishment or
extra guard
fatigue or other
duty
11. Confinement to - - Comdt.
quarters lines,
camp, fatigue
duties, etc., for
Page | 13
2023:JHHC:891
2023:JHHC:891
a term not
exceeding one
month
Notes .--1. When the post of Deputy Inspector-General remains unfilled for a period of over one month at a time the Commandant shall exercise the powers of punishing the Subedars (Inspectors) and Sub-Inspectors except the powers of ordering dismissal or removal from the Force.
2. When the post of Commandant remains unfilled for a period of over one month at a time consequent on the incumbent proceeding on leave or otherwise, the Assistant Commandant shall exercise the powers of punishment vested in the Commandant, except the powers of ordering dismissal or removal from the Force. Explanation .--(a) Dismissal of a member of the Force precludes him from being re-employed in Government service, while removal of any such member from the Force shall not be disqualification for any future employment (other than an employment in the Central Reserve Police Force) under the Government.
(b) When non-Gazetted Officers or men of the various ranks are to be punished for any offence, a departmental enquiry, if necessary under clause (a) , shall be held by the Commandant or other superior officer under the orders of the Commandant, provided that when the charge is against an officer of the rank of Subedar (Inspector) or Sub-Inspector the enquiry shall be held by an authority to be designated for the purpose by the Deputy Inspector-General. Where the officer conducting the enquiry in the case of a Subedar (Inspector) or a SubInspector considers that a punishment [under items (1) to (5) and (7)] of the Table is called for, he shall complete the departmental proceedings and forward the departmental proceedings and forward the same to the Deputy InspectorGeneral for orders.
(c) The procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry shall be as follows:--
Page | 14 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891 (1) The substance of the accusation shall be reduced to the form of a written charge, which should be as precise as possible. The charge shall be read out to the accused and a copy of it given to him at least 48 hrs. before the commencement of the enquiry.
(2) At the commencement of the enquiry the accused shall be asked to enter a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" after which evidence necessary to establish the charge shall be let in. The evidence shall be material to the charge and may either be oral or documentary, if oral; (i) it shall be direct; (ii) it shall be recorded by the Officer conducting the enquiry himself in the presence of the accused; (iii) the accused shall be allowed to cross examine the witnesses.
(3) When documents are relied upon in support of the charge, they shall be put in evidence as exhibits and the accused shall, before he is called upon to make his defence, be allowed to inspect such exhibits. (4) The accused shall then be examined and his statement recorded by the officer conducting the enquiry.
If the accused has pleaded guilty and does not challenge the evidence on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he pleads "Not guilty", he shall be required to file a written statement, and a list of such witnesses as he may wish to cite in his defence within such period, which shall in any case be not less than a fortnight, as the officer conducting enquiry may deem reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If he declines to file a written statement, he shall again be examined by the officer conducting the enquiry on the expiry of the period allowed.
(5) If the accused refuses to cite any witnesses or to produce any evidence in his defence, the proceedings shall be closed for orders. If he produces any evidence the officer conducting the enquiry shall proceed to record the evidence. If the officer conducting the enquiry considers that the evidence of any witness or any document which the accused wants to produce in his Page | 15 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891 defence is not material to the issues involved in the case, he may refuse to call such witness or to allow such document to be produced in evidence, but in all such cases he must briefly record his reasons for considering the evidence inadmissible. When all relevant evidence has been brought on record, the proceedings shall be closed for orders.
(6) If the Commandant has himself held the enquiry, he shall record his findings and pass orders where he has power to do so. If the enquiry has been held by any officer other than the Commandant, the officer conducting the enquiry shall forward his report together with the proceedings, to the Commandant, who shall record his findings and pass orders, where he has power to do so. [* * *] [(cc) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule---
(i) where any penalty is imposed on a member of the Force on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or
(ii) where the authority competent to impose the penalty is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or
(iii) where [the Special Director-General or Additional Director heading zone or Director-General] is satisfied that in the interest of security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any enquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the authority competent to impose the penalty may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit. (ccc) When a member of the Force has been tried and acquitted by a Criminal Court, he shall not be punished departmentally under this rule on the same charge or on a similar charge upon the evidence cited in the criminal case, whether actually led or not, except with the prior sanction of the InspectorGeneral.] (d) (1) Where two or more members of the Force, including those on Page | 16 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891 deputation to the Force are concerned in any case, the Inspector-General [or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such members of the Force] may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding.
Note .--Where in such a proceeding, the misconduct of a deputationist is to be dealt with, the consent of the disciplinary authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal shall be obtained for the taking of such a disciplinary action. (2) Such order shall specify---
(i) the authority which may function as the disciplinary for such a common proceeding; (ii) the penalties specified in the table of sub-rule (a) above which such disciplinary authority shall be competent to impose;
(iii) whether such disciplinary authority shall hold the Departmental enquiry himself or may designate any other enquiry officer for that purpose; and (iv) that the enquiry shall be held in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (a) and sub-rule (c) .
28. The jurisdiction of the appellate or the revisional authority is to look into the finding arrived at by the disciplinary authority based on the factual aspect, as has been taken by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority on its own or on an application, if made by the aggrieved, can set the proceeding at motion to set the thing in right position.
29. The appellate authority is also supposed to apply its mind within the framework of discipline and appeal Rules and it is not expected from the appellate authority to deviate from the relevant rules or factual aspect involved therein.
Page | 17 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891
30. Adverting to the ground which has been agitated by referring to paragraph 5 of the order dated 09.07.2016 passed by the appellate authority having been upheld by the revisional authority wherein reasoning has been assigned for reversal of the order of compulsory retirement to that of order of removal is that the service rendered by the applicant has wrongly been calculated showing the applicant has completed 10 years of service.
31. This Court is of the view that while imposing the punishment it is none of the business of the disciplinary authority/appellate/revisional authority to look into the consequence of punishment rather thoughtful consideration is required to be given by the original authority or the appellate authority or the revisional authority on the nature of gravity of charge. The disciplinary authority in the instant case has considered the gravity of charge and has found satisfied that compulsory retirement having been in the list of major punishment as provided under Rule 27 is just and proper.
32. The writ petitioner having challenged the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority preferred appeal, but the appellate authority instead of going through the gravity of charge, in order to come to the conclusion regarding propriety of punishment which Page | 18 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891 has been inflicted by the disciplinary authority has gone into its consequence i.e., the appellate authority had held that the petitioner had not rendered the period of ten years of service and changed the punishment passed by the disciplinary to removal from service. Consequence of the punishment since is immaterial rather the gravity of charge is material which the appellate authority ought to have gone into, for the purpose of consideration of propriety of punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority, by going through the nature of charge and not on its consequence, as the appellate authority has done as under paragraph 5 of the order passed by the appellate authority.
33. The petitioner since has not questioned the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, rather, he has restricted himself by submitting that the punishment of compulsory retirement is just and proper, as has been inflicted by the disciplinary authority, hence, this Court is of the view that the reasoning which has been shown by the appellate authority, going by the consequence of compulsory retirement and merely because the petitioner has not found to have completed 10 years of service, which led the appellate authority to convert the punishment from 'compulsory retirement' to that of 'removal from service', is not sustainable.
Page | 19 2023:JHHC:891 2023:JHHC:891
34. This Court, in view of the aforesaid, is of the view that the reasoning which has been applied by the appellate authority having been affirmed by the revisional authority, is not in consonance with the punishment as enlisted in the list of punishment, as per CRPF Rules, 1955.
35. This Court, considering the aforesaid facts in entirety, is of the view that the order passed by the appellate authority as also the revisional authority are not sustainable to the extent of punishment from compulsory retirement to that of removal from service in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order dated 09.07.2016 passed by the appellate authority as also order dated 14.10.2016 passed by the revisional authority are hereby quashed and set aside.
36. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in part, as indicated hereinabove, and disposed of.
37. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 15th April, 2026 A.F.R. Alankar/-
Page | 20