IMPORTANT POINT
The revisional authority's power must be exercised within the prescribed time limit; failure to do so renders the order void.

J UDGMENT :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner is assailing inter- alia the impugned order dated 07.07.2020 passed by the DIGP Range HQ, CRPF, (hereinafter referred to as the “revisional authority”) whereby the petitioner was removed from service.

3. The facts of the present case are as follows: -

Pursuant to an advertisement in the year 2013 to the post of Constable/Fitter issued by the Central Reserve Force, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process and upon being selected, he was appointed as Constable/Fitter. Thereafter, upon receiving a complaint that the petitioner had submitted fake certificate regarding the experience criteria at the time of recruitment, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer after completing his enquiry submitted Enquiry Report on 04.03.2019 before the disciplinary authorities, wherein the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the offence charged. Thereafter, the disciplinary authorities by order dated 05.10.2019 imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment for 1 year without cumulative effect. Thereafter, the revisional authority by letter dated 05.03.2020 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner as why the aforesaid punishment given to him shall not be enhanced. Against the aforesaid show-cause notice, the petitioner by letter dated 15.03.2020 furnished his reply. After the petitioner submitted his reply, the revisional authority by letter dated 07.07.2020 in exercise of the suo-motu revisional power under the provisions of the Rules was pleased to enhance the punishment with removal from service from the Force. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the revisional authority, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the revisional authority is time barred and hence is illegal and void-ab- initio. In view of the said submission on limitation, this Court deems appropriate to confine the hearing at the outset on the issue of limitation as argued. Hence, the arguments made by Mr. Mazumdar on the other aspect of the matter are not gone into at this stage. In support of the aforesaid submission on limitation, he has relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) Commandant 110 Battalion Central Reserve Police Force & Others Vs. Harisingh , reported in 2009 4 MLJ 60

(ii) Narendra Singh Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2023 (4) GLT 652

5. Per Contra, Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Central Government Counsel for the respondents submits that under the relevant rules, though there is a time period for filing revision petition, however, the same is not applicable in the case of suo-moto revision. In support of the aforesaid submission, he has relied upon the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) , in the case of Mahesh Singh Sikarwar Vs Union of India and others, reported in (2022) 09 MP CK 0098 He further draws the attention of this Court that pending the writ proceeding, the appeal filed by the writ petitioner against the impugned order of the revisional authority has been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 31.12.2020, which is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the additional affidavit filed by the writ petitioner on 19.01.2021.

6. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels appearing for the contending parties and have perused the material available on record. I have also considered