Sangeeta Chandra, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment dated 24.9.2011 passed by the Commandant, 95 Battalion, C.R.P.F, Varanasi.
(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the petitioner has preferred an appeal but he has preferred the appeal to Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Bihar Sector, Patna, whereas he should have filed the appeal before the Deputy Inspector General. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it has been mentioned that as per Rule 28 of the CRPF Rule, 1955, appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authorities should be made to the Deputy Inspector General who is the Revisional Authority against the provision Rule 28 (d) of CRPF Rule 1955. But the time barred application submitted by the petitioner did not contain the signature of the delinquent employee and therefore, it was returned to the petitioner by the D.I.G. Muzaffarpur on 22.12.2011 with the directions to submit the appeal to the D.I.G. Muzaffarpur with a request of condonation of delay also be filed along with it. Till the date of filing of writ petition no appeal was filed by the petitioner.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner says that objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition in view of the statutory remedy being available to the petitioner, has been raised at a belated stage.;