2025:JHHC:31151 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3456 of 2018 Binod Kumar Mehra, aged 23 years, son of Shri Uttam Chandra Mehra, resident of village Logain, Post Latuna, Police Station Pathargama, District Godda ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The Union of India 2. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Jamshedpur officiating from Jamshedpur, Post Mango, Police Station Mango, District East Singhbhum 3. The Commandant, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Jamshedpur officiating from Jamshedpur, Post Mango, Police Station Mango, District East Singhbhum 4. The Accounts Officer, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Jamshedpur officiating from Jamshedpur, Post Mango, Police Station Mango, District East Singhbhum ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate Mr. Raj, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGC -------- Order No. 08 /Dated: 8th October 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1.I For issuance of an appropriate writ/Rule/Direction particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter dated 29.06.2018 issued under the signature of the Accounts Officer, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Jamshedpur (Annexure-4) served on the father of the petitioner directing him to deposit Rs. 2,04983+53860=2,58,843 (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Three only). II. For issuance of an appropriate writ/Rule/Direction particularly a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the office order no. D.V.3/2018-EC-VI dated 30.06.2018 issued under the signature of the Commandant, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Jamshedpur (Amexure-5) by which the service of the petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect on the ground that he has been declared ‘Unfit’ as a combatant in Armed Force by the competent Medical authority of the department. III. For a further direction to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner from April to June2018. IV. For a further direction to the respondents to return the original certificates to the petitioner which he had submitted before them at the time of his appointment and are still in their custody. V. For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found 2025:JHHC:31151 2 entitled to.” 2. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant writ application may be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority on the issue of recovery under Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the counter-affidavit and submits that there is no error in the impugned order and it is not stigmatic, however, he fairly submits that if the petitioner chooses to approach the appellate authority, he may do so. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the order of termination (Annexure-5 to the writ application) it appears that the order is not stigmatic in nature and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, so far as question of termination is concerned. 5. However, so far as issue of recovery is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned authority who shall decide this issue in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of representation. 6. It goes without saying that the concerned authority shall not be prejudiced by the demand notice which has been issued by the department while passing the reasoned order. 7. The instant writ application stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 08.10.2025 Amit Uploaded on 16/10 /2025