The judgment establishes that there is no provision for filing an appeal/application against the order of revision, and the petitioner can challenge the final order by way of revision before the concerned respondent.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order passed by the Commandant / Legal Letter No.V-11014/148/L-20672 (E) 1388, dated 07.09.2021 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to dispose the Appeal dated 30.06.2021 submitted by the petitioner on merits within the time fixed by this Court.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order, dated 07.09.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent dispose of the appeal, dated 30.06.2021 preferred by the petitioner on merits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that while the petitioner was on deputation with BOI Delhi (IB), a charge memorandum, dated 24.03.2020 was issued on him. The petitioner sent a written statement of defence to the charge memo, dated 24.03.2020. Thereafter he was intimated that the Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority for holding enquiry in respect of the said Charge Memo. Enquiry was conducted from 11.05.2020 to 01.06.2020 and Enquiry Report was submitted on 06.06.2020. The petitioner made representation on 10.06.2020. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent vide order dated 08.07.2020, imposed punishment of removal from service with immediate effect against the petitioner. Aggrieved against the said punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 46 of CISF rules, 2001 before the 4th respondent viz., the Deputy Inspector General, CISF SZ-1, Chennai on 28.07.2020 and the same was rejected on 04.11.2020, against which the petitioner has preferred Revision before the 3rd respondent viz., the Inspector General CISF, South Sector, Chennai and the same was also rejected on 07.04.2021. Aggrieved against the said order, dated 07.04.2021 passed in the Revision, the petitioner preferred another appeal on 30.06.2021 along with an application for condonation of delay. However, after few months, the proceedings, dated 07.09.2021 was issued by the 2nd respondent, observing that the petitioner has already exhausted departmental remedies by way of appeal and revision and hence, no intervention is warranted at this stage. Claiming that the said proceeding, dated 07.09.2021 is unfair and unlawful, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. According to the petitioner the impugned order, dated 07.09.2021 is liable to be set aside on the ground that the order is unsustainable in law since the 2nd respondent is an appellate authority. The learned counsel also brought attention of this Court to the provision of Section 9 in the Central Industrial Security Force Act:

9. Appeal and revision:-

(1) Any "enrolled" member of the Force aggrieved by an order made under section 8 may within thirty days from the date on which the order is communicated to him prefer an appeal against the order to such authority as may be prescribed, and subject to the provisions of sub section (2A), sub section (2B) and subsection (3), the decision of the said authority thereon shall be final: Provided that the prescribed authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filling the appeal in time.

(2) In disposing of an appeal the prescribed authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.(2A) Any enrolled members of the Force aggrieved by an order passed in appeal under sub-section (1) may, within a period of six months from the date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer a revision petition against the order to such authority as may be prescribed and in disposing of the revision petition, the said authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. (2B) The authority, as may be prescribed for the purpose of this sub-section, on a revision petition preferred by an aggrieved enrolled member of the Force or suo-moto, may call for, within a pr