# / v. The Commandant, 66th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force B.R.S. Nagar, Ludhiana - **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 738 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2005-07-21 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50577 of 2005 - **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/v-the-commandant-66th-battalion-central-reserve-police-force-b-r-s-nagar-40578 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Central Reserved Police Force Rules 1949-rule 9 (F)-dismissal on the ground of desertion-working under C.R.P.F. absent for 82 days-Inquiry officer submitted report-total exoneration with finding about no intention of desertionbeing confusal state of mind-disciplinary authority imposed punishment-taken different view than the inquiry officer-No opportunity of hearing given-Order quashed maintaining findings of inquiry - in the light of observations made above. Held: Para 5 It is absolutely iniquitous as held by the Supreme Court, for the disciplinary authority to reverse a favourable finding behind the back of the person who is to suffer final and heavy civil consequences. On the basis of this legal reason, the order under appeal is setaside. The order of the Inquiry Officer, C.B. Baisoya, will remain on the record and shall not be interfered with in any manner. The order of the Commandant, R.C. Puri, dated 19th December, 1992 is cancelled and set-aside. The Commandant now in charge and jurisdiction will re-decide the matter on the basis of Balsoy's report and in accordance with law as indicated above. Case law discussed: 1988 (7) SCC-84 2003 (2) SCC-449 SC ## Text 738 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 the High Court while exercising the jurisdiction ~ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has the jurisdiction to Interfere otherwise there is very little scope for interference. In view of the aforesaid fact, I find no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2005 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50577 of 2005 Chokhey Lal ...Petitioner Versus Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Harish Chandra Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.K. Singh S.C. U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-Section 122-B(4-F)- Petitioner being to Dhobi (Washer man) by caste-seeking benefit of the provision u/s 122-B (4-F) continuous possession over the plot in questionr-none of the courts below recorded findings regarding agricultural labourer-remand order by Board of Revenue-held-proper. Held: Para 3 The order of remand was rightly passed in accordance with law. Now the petitioner will get full opportunity to establish that he is entitled to get benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Case law discussed: 2003 (94) RD-538 (Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Petitioner claims benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. None of the authorities below recorded finding whether petitioner is an agricultural labourer. The Board of Revenue after considering the entire material on record remanded matter to the Trial court to determine whether petitioner is an agricultural labourer as defined under Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 3. The order of remand was rightly passed in accordance with law. Now the petitioner will get full opportunity to establish that he is entitled to get benefit of Section 122-B(4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 4. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 2003 (94) R.D. 538 Manorey @ Manohar Vs. Board of Revenue and others also supports the order of the Board of Revenue. This judgment also makes it clear that the relief could only be granted to a person, if it is established that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and is an agricultural labourer. 5. There was no finding of the authorities below that petitioner is an agricultural labourer. The report of the Lekhpal too states that petitioner belongs to Dhobi Caste, but this report does not 2 All] Zakir Hussain Constable 901310895 V. The Commandant, 66th Battalion 739 state that petitioner is an landless agricultural labourer. The case law cited by the petitioner will support the order of Board of Revenue. 6. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that the Trial court shall decide the matter expeditiously. With above direction, writ petition is finally disposed of. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2005 BEFORE THE HON'BLE AJOY NATH RAY, J. THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Special Appeal No. 870 of 2005 Zakir Hussain Constable No.901310895 ...Appellant/Petitioner Versus The Commandant, 66th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force B.R.S. Nagar, Ludhiana ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Manish Kumar Nigam Sri Rahul Sahai Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Ajit Kumar Singh Central Reserved Police Force Rules 1949-rule 9 (F)-dismissal on the ground of desertion-working under C.R.P.F. absent for 82 days-Inquiry officer submitted report-total exoneration with finding about no intention of desertionbeing confusal state of mind-disciplinary authority imposed punishment-taken different view than the inquiry officer-No opportunity of hearing given-Order quashed maintaining findings of inquiry - in the light of observations made above. Held: Para 5 It is absolutely iniquitous as held by the Supreme Court, for the disciplinary authority to reverse a favourable finding behind the back of the person who is to suffer final and heavy civil consequences. On the basis of this legal reason, the order under appeal is setaside. The order of the Inquiry Officer, C.B. Baisoya, will remain on the record and shall not be interfered with in any manner. The order of the Commandant, R.C. Puri, dated 19th December, 1992 is cancelled and set-aside. The Commandant now in charge and jurisdiction will re-decide the matter on the basis of Balsoy's report and in accordance with law as indicated above. Case law discussed: 1988 (7) SCC-84 2003 (2) SCC-449 SC (Delivered by Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J.) 1. In this case the writ petitionerappellant, Zakir Hussain, was serving in the Central Reserved Police Force at the material time. He was absent for 82 days. His case was that he had gone to play football match for the C.R.P.F. at Durgapur but he had to desert and attend to his ailing father, who was suffering from serious illness of infective hepatitis. One C.B. Baisoya D/C was appointed the Inquiry Officer. He submitted a report totally exonerating the writ petitioner. It was concluded that he did not have any intention of desertion; that he was only in a confused state of mind; that he should be given the benefit of doubt; that no act of gross misconduct or disobedience under Section 9 (f) of the C.R.P.F. Rules, 1949 had been proved. 2. As required by sub Rule (c) (6) of Rule 27 this inquiry, not being held by the Commandant, was forwarded by way of