The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revisional authority's power to enhance punishment should be exercised within a reasonable period, and failure to do so would render the order legally infirm.

D. Murugesan, J.

This writ appeal is at the instance of the official respondents in the writ petition. The respondent was enlisted in the Central Reserve Police Force on 12. 1969 as a Constable. He was promoted as Head Constable on 18. 96. While he was working in 110 Battalion, C.R.P.F., Kohima, Nagaland, a verification was made as to his date of birth. After verification, a charge sheet dated 24. 96 was issued stating that he was found to have altered his date of birth in the educational certificate as 5. 1950 instead of 5. 1953 with intent to get himself enlisted. After the receipt of the explanation, a departmental enquiry was conducted and as the charge had been found to be proved, he was imposed a penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year by the orders dated 18. 96. The said penalty was effected and thereafter the respondent was also transferred to Poonamallee. While he was serving in Poonamallee, he was issued with the show cause notice dated 7. 99 from the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Bangalore, the third appellant purportedly in exercise of the power under Rule 29(b) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (for short, "the Rules"). By that show cause notice, a tentative conclusion was arrived at for reviewing the penalty imposed on the respondent and for the proposed enhancement of penalty into one of removal from service. A reply dated 27. 99 was filed by the respondent, but the same was not accepted by the order dated 38. 99 and the penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year imposed on 18. 96 was modified into one of removal from service.

2. As against the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Hyderabad, the fourth appellant and the same was rejected by the order dated 12. 2000. Aggrieved by the above orders, the respondent approached this Court by way of the writ petition and by the order under appeal, the writ petition was allowed on the ground that there is no power of revisionary jurisdiction beyond a period of 30 days. The learned Judge, however, taking into consideration that the respondent had been found guilty and he had also not rendered any duty from the date of removal from service, has held that the respondent would not be entitled to any arrears of salary and he should be reinstated forthwith and would be entitled to future salary on reinstatement. This proposition is put in issue in this appeal.

3. Mrs. R. Maheswari, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellants has submitted that inasmuch as the provision of Rule 29(d) of the Rules stipulates that the Director General or the Inspector General or the Deputy Inspector General may call for the records of award of any punishment and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same, or make or direct further investigation to be made before passing such orders, the power of revision is vested in the authority and therefore, it cannot be held that the authority has no revisionary jurisdiction. The only condition for exercise of the said power is that before any enhancement of punishment is proposed, the delinquent officer should be given an opportunity to show cause either orally or in writing as to why the punishment should not be enhanced. Inasmuch as the respondent was given opportunity to show cause for the proposed enhancement of punishment, the proviso has been complied with and therefore, the learned Judge had erred in holding that the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised beyond a period of 30 days, as contemplated under Rule 28(e) of the said Rules. She has not advanced any arguments on merit, except by drawing our attention to paragraph-14 of the counter affidavit, where it has been stated that for the proved misconduct of alteration of the date of birth, the punishment of removal or dismissal from service must alone be imposed. She would also submit that as the charge is proved, the le