The Revisional Authority can enhance punishment under CISF Rules if due process is followed, and the petitioner must utilize the appeal process provided therein.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed to set aside the order contained in Order No. V-11014/NES/LC/Rev-37/2009-1211 dated 04.02.2010 whereby the petitioner’s revision petition dated 13.02.2009 was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments submits that punishment order, appellate order and the revisional order is bad. It is his contention that the revision was taken up and the Revisional Authority has enhanced the punishment. As per him the earlier punishment was reduction of pay-scale for a period of one year which in revision has been enhanced for a period of five years, to which the petitioner is aggrieved.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Revisional Authority has jurisdiction to enhance the punishment, which the Authority has invoked. It is his contention that before enhancing the punishment proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not filed any appeal in terms of Rule 54(2) read with Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001.

4. Petitioner is a Constable in CISF. Now, he is in the rank of Head Constable. He was charge-sheeted on account of committing misconduct. It is alleged that he has collected bribe of Rs. 100/- from one Shri Prakash Chandra, Assistant Manager. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 28.06.2008 the petitioner was punished and the quantum of punishment was as follows:

“Reduction of pay one stage from Rs. 4050/- to Rs. 3965/- in the time scale of pay 3200-85-4900 for a period of one year with further direction that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.”

5. The petitioner filed an appeal against the final order which was rejected. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision. In the revision application the punishment was enhanced. The Revisional Authority enhanced the period of one year to five years.

6. One of the argument which the petitioner contended is that in a revision petition filed by the petitioner the respondents cannot enhance the punishment.

7. To consider the aforesaid provision, I have gone through the CISF Rules. The power of revision is vested upon the Authority under Rule 54. Rule 54 read as follows:

“54. Revision - (1) Any authority superior to the authority making the order may either on his own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules, and may –

(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order.

(b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed.

(c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further enquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case.

(d) pass such orders as it may deem fit, within six months of the date of communication of the order propose to be revised.

Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revisioning authority unless the enrolled member of the Force concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of rule 34 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, and if any, inquiry under rule-36 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 has not already been held in the case no such penalty sha