Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 68362 (PNJ)

RAJESH KUMAR MISHRA v. DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF AND OTHERS

CWP/21810/2018 · 2025-04-21

Vinod S Bhardwaj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 220 CWP-21810-2018 Date of Decision: 21.04.2025 RAJESH KUMAR MISHRA ... Petitioner VERSUS DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ. **** Present: Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravinder Pal Singh, Advocate (through video conference) for the respondents. **** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) The instant writ petition has been filed for seeking quashing of charge sheet dated 23.02.2016, the report of Inquiry Officer dated 15.06.2016 and the punishment order dated 07.07.2016, imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had earlier filed a Civil Writ Petition in the year 2017 titled as “Rajesh Kumar Mishra Versus Union of India and others” before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court, which was dismissed as not pressed. He further contends that the petitioner would thus be estopped and barred from approaching this Court for seeking the same relief. He submits that even though the reply was filed in the month of September 2019 and a period of nearly six years has elapsed since then, however, the abovesaid factual aspect has remained undisputed and uncontroverted as no replication or rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner till date. RAJENDER KUMAR 2025.04.23 05:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21810-2018 -2- Noticing that there is concealment of crucial facts by the petitioner including filing of Writ Petition before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and same having already been dismissed as not pressed, the same would operate as res-judicata in re-agitating the same aspect before a separate forum. This Court would have, ordinarily, imposed heavy costs on such a litigant, however, taking into consideration the stance of learned counsel for the petitioner, the costs is not being imposed. Dismissed. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) APRIL 21, 2025. JUDGE Rajender Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJENDER KUMAR 2025.04.23 05:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document