JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents along with Mr. Sujit Kumar Lala, Advocate.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs : -

(i) For issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.09.2012 as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application by which punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner i.e. reduction of two stage from 8440-GP- 2400 to R.7790-GP2400 in the time scale of pay for the period of two years with immediate effect and further directed that the petitioner will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of that period the reduction will have the effective of postponing the future increment of pay without considering the fact there is no fighting with Ajay Srivastava outsider nor the petitioner was absent from duty and all these aspect has not been considered and major penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner.

(ii) For quashing of letter dated 18 October, 2014 as contained in Annexure-10/1 to the writ petition subsequently a corrigendum has been issued by which the pay scale which has wrongly been mentioned in the impugned order, has been corrected.

(iii) For issuance of direction for quashing of the appellate order dated 31.01.2013 contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition by which the appeal so preferred by the petitioner has been rejected without considering the ground taken by the petitioner in appeal, hence the order of appellate authority is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and the same has been passed without application of mind and without considering the ground of appeal.

(iv) For issuance of direction for quashing of letter dated 09.10.2019 as contained in Annexure-14 by which the revision so preferred by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground the same is barred considering the fact the petitioner is losing increment because of the impugned order which is excessive in nature and does not commensurate with the charges leveled against the petitioner.

(v) Issuance of direction for keeping in abeyance the impugned orders as contained in Annexure- to the writ petition during the pendency of this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection with regard to the writ petition by submitting that the petitioner had also filed a revision application before the appropriate authority in terms of Section 9 (2-A) of the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 after expiry of more than 6 years from the date of the appellate order dated 31.01.2013, although the time period prescribed is only 6 months and the revision application has been rejected on the ground that the same was badly time barred and there was no explanation for delay of 6 years. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had already accepted the order of punishment. The revisional authority having rejected the revision as aforesaid and there being no illegality in said order as contained in Annexure-14, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.

Arguments of the petitioner

5. Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the revision was barred by limitation, and there was no explanation for delay of 6 years, still the same will not be an impediment in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the case can be taken up on merits and appropriate order be passed. Learned counsel, while assailing the impugned order, has submitted that primarily the petitioner has been punished by reduction of 2 stages in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with a further direction that he will not earn the increment of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of that period, reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. He submits that punished imposed is shockingl