The lack of reasonable opportunity to contest penalty enhancement violates procedural requirements, mandating annulment of the revised order and a fresh evaluation per legal norms.

JUDGMENT :

(ANSHUMAN, J.)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.I.S.F.').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 24.12.2015 passed by the Assistant Commandant -cum- Disciplinary Authority, Birsa Munda Airport (as contained in Annexure -5 to the Writ Petition), order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Commandant -cum -Appellate Authority, Birsa Munda Airport (as contained in Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition) and order dated 10.06.2016 passed by the Commandant /Revisioning Authority (as contained in Annexure -9 to the Writ Petition).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as GD/Constable in C.I.S.F. on 14.08.200. She was posted at Ranchi Airport where on the instance of the complaint made by one Balvir Kaur, Sub Inspector, an advisory was issued to the petitioner on 11.11.2012. However, on 10.11.2012, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Deputy Commandant stating therein the problem created by Balvir Kaur, Sub-Inspector in day-to-day work. Learned counsel further submits that the Deputy Commandant upon verification in this matter issued a warning letter to the petitioner on 06.01.2023 (as contained in Annexure -2 to the Writ Petition). Subsequently, on the basis of the allegation made by Balvir Kaur, Sub-Inspector, a memo was issued to the petitioner on 17.11.2015 (as contained in Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition). Following the said memo, the petitioner filed show cause within time i.e. on 07.12.2015 (as contained in Annexure -4 to the Writ Petition). Thereafter, punishment of 'fine equivalent to one day pay' was inflicted upon the petitioner following the departmental proceeding vide order dated 24.12.2015 (as contained in Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred appeal. In the said appeal, the order dated 24.12.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been confirmed. Thereafter, against the appellate order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner preferred revision in which the punishment of ' fine equivalent to one day pay' has been set aside and a higher punishment has been awarded directing 'deduction of salary equivalent to three days' .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after passing of the said order by the Revisioning Authority, the petitioner challenged the said order before this Hon'ble Court and submits that the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Disciplinary Authority and the Revisioning Authority are bad in law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the enhancement of the penalty by the Revisioning Authority was unlawful because she was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the enhanced penalty, as mandated by Rule 54 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'C.I.S.F. Rule, 2001). He further submits that Rule 54 clearly states that before enhancing any penalty, the Revisioning Authority must offer a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent to make a representation.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the C.I.S.F. submits that in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit dated 12.04.2017 filed by the respondents, specific pleading has been taken by the C.I.S.F. that "after throrough examination of the case of delinquent the Revisioning Authority came to the conclusion that the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authori