IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 7357 of 2013 Abhishek Kumar Sah @ Abhishek Kumar Saha, son of Sri Rajendra Prasad Sah, resident Village: Pilghutoo, P.O: Jonka, P.S: Rajmahal, Dist: Sahebganj. … … Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India Director General of Police, North Sector, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi; 2. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Gurgaon, Haryana; 3. Commandant, 121 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Kathua, Jammu & Kashmir … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Yadav, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Sr. PC : Ms. Kumari Ranjana Singh, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Rukmini Kumari, AC to SC Mines III --- 11/24.01.2025 This writ petition has been filed for the following relief: “a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in the nature of 'Certiorari' for quashing the order dated 12.09.2011 passed by Disciplinary Authority, i.e., Commandant, 121 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Kathua, Jammu & Kashmir by which the Petitioner has been removed from the services illegally and arbitrarily with immediate effect. And b) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding upon the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner with all consequential benefits in accordance with law. And c) Pass such order/writ/ direction as your Lordship may deem fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and accordance with law. And d) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the order (Annexure 6) passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Range Headquarters, CRPF, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh (Appellate Authority) whereby the Appellate Authority has upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the impugned order dated 12.09.2011, even when the petitioner is having a serious ground that his absence from the duty was not wilful but was instead a result of the compelling circumstances of his mother's ill health;” 2. This Court finds that from perusal of paragraph 11 H of the amended writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner has filed a 2 revision in terms of Rule 29 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules / Regulations / Scheme 1955 challenging the order dated 31.03.2016 (Annexure – 6). The revision has been filed before the Inspector General of Police, Northern Sector, CRPF, New Delhi. The Annexure - 6 is one of the impugned orders in present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no instruction as to what ultimately happened to the revision application, but when the writ petition was filed, the revision was pending. 4. This Court is of the considered view that it is not open to the petitioner to avail parallel remedies in connection with the same order. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to proceed any further in this writ petition. It is further observed that if the said revision is still pending, it will be open to the petitioner to pursue his revision and if the revision has been disposed of, it is certainly open to the petitioner to have his remedy against the order , if aggrieved and also pray for appropriate relief in connection with other prayers in accordance with the law. 5. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 6. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav