06.3. 2025 item No.9 n.b. ct. no. 24 WPA 20053 of 2019 Suneet Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Dyutimoy Paul, Mr. Sachetan Ghosh ….. for the petitioner. Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, …… for the respondent. The instant writ petition was preferred for quashing the impugned order dated April 24, 2017 passed by the Additional Director General CZ, CRPF, Kolkata. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner joined the CRPF as Driver vide appointment letter dated July 22, 2004. On August 4, 2011 the petitionr proceed on leave till August 25, 2011 but unfortunately when he started his destination to join the duty, he suddenly feel sick and could not join battalion in time. However, he was hospitalized and under prolonged treatment. It is the case of petitioner that he has wrote a letter to the authority regarding extension of his leave for further sixty days for medical treatment. Thereafter, on March 1, 2013 the petitioner approached the authority for joining the duty. On his application, the authority has intimated him on March 13, 2013 that his service has already been terminated by one disciplinary action. So, he was instructed to prefer an appeal with the concerned authority. Accordingly, one appeal was preferred under Rule 28 of CRPF Rules 1955, which was disposed of by the concerned authority vide order dated July 25, 2013 whereby the appellate authority has observed that the appeal dismissed being as time barred without merits and baseless. Against the said order of appeal, the petitioner approached the concerned authority being the Special Director General, Central Zone, CRPF. ADJ, CZ, CRPF, Kolkata vide impugned order dated April 24, 2017 has disposed of the said application and affirmed the order of appeal wherein the punishment of the petitioner “dismissal from service” awarded by the disciplinary authority was affirmed. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the instant writ has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the disciplinary action against him was started by an enquiry report, which was has never forwarded to the petitioner or never served upon him. He was all alone in the Government Hospital, thus, he was unaware about disciplinary proceeding initiated by the authority against him. He further submits that when he approached the authority, no order of disciplinary proceeding was served upon him rather he was instructed to prefer an appeal. Accordingly, the appeal has been preferred against the instruction. He 2 further submits that the appellate authority without going through the merit of this matter has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was preferred in delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are specific provision in the CRPF Rules 1955 that delay in preferring an appeal may be condoned. He further submits that impugned order has also not considered any merit of the matter and passed the impugned order. It is the contention of the petitioner that nothing regarding the departmental proceeding and enquiry report was served upon him. Consequently, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard is utter violation of natural justice. He further submits that the appeal was disposed of only on the ground of limitation. The appellate authority has not considered the merit in this matter. Thus, the impugned order passed by the concerned ADJ, CRPF, Kolkata is devoid of merit and required to be set aside. Respondent authority has used affidavit-in- opposition against the writ petition and submits the several documents, the authority has also placed a report in the form of affidavit containing several documents of the impugned departmental proceeding. 3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authority submits that the entire departmental proceeding, departmental enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner. The final order of the departmental enquiry was also forwarded to the petitioner through registered post. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has placed the copy of registered slips, which was registered at the home address of the petitioner as well as the concerned Superintendent of Police of the area wherein the present petitioner was residing. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent authority that the present petitioner has preferred an appeal but not filed any application for condonation of delay, reasons thereof the appellate authority could not condone the delay in preferring the instant appeal. It is the further contention of the respondent authority that the appellate authority has passed the order on merit and has scrutinized the entire case record of the appellant/petitioner before deciding the issue on merit. He further submits that the appellate authority has properly considered the case and dismissed the appeal. Learned counsel further argued the concerned ADJ, CZ, CRPF, has perused the order of the 4 disciplinary authority as well as the order of appellate authority and has considered the grounds as raised by the petitioner before the authority and has given sufficient opportunity of being heard and thereafter passed the impugned order. He submits that the natural justice has never been violated in this case. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the present petitioner was appointed in the CRPF and admittedly he had been leave, thereafter, he could not join. The documents appended to the affidavit-in-opposition shows that departmental enquiry report as well as copy of final order of departmental enquiry was forwarded to the petitioner through registered post. The slip of registered post has categorically depicted that the departmental enquiry report was served upon the petitioner. However, the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the letter of intimation by the CRPF. Though the appeal has been preferred against the letter but the appellant authority has not only considered the letter but also considered the order of departmental authority. After perusing of the order of the departmental authority, it appears to me that the departmental authority has come to an opinion that the petitioner was habit of absence without informing the authority and has come to opinion that the appellant was habitual of being absent. The appellate authority has also put some instance, when 5 the appellant/petitioner was absent without prior information or leave. It is true that the appeal preferred under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules 1955 after statutory period of limitation and delay thereof can be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act. But it appears that no such application was filed by the appellant/petitioner before the authority. It is the contention of the petitioner that the department has never handed over any copy of termination of the petitioner. So, it was quite impossible for him to prefer an appeal against the said order. I have perused the entire record, it appears that the order of dismissal from service was passed on May 24, 2012 by the disciplinary authority. The ADJ, CZ, CRPF has taken note of the order of “the dismissal of service” and also considered the order of the appellate authority. The impugned order also assigned the reasons for which the order of appellate authority cannot be set aside. The petitioner never raise the issue of non-service of order of dismissal upon him either before appellate authority or before ADJ, CZ. This issue of non-service of departmental proceeding raised before this Court for first time. Petitioner cannot be allowed raise an issue which he never raised before the concerned authority. It is not permitted for this petition to develop his case for first time before a writ court. 6 After considering the entire impugned order dated April 24, 2017, it appears that the order is well reasoned and suffers no illegality. This court is not an appellate authority to decide the merit of impugned order. I find no justification to hold that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Considering the same, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of as dvoid of merit. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Subhendu Samanta, J.) 7