V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Uma Shankar Singh, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) ON the matter being taken up today, preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Uma Shankar Singh, Advocate by mentioning that against the order impugned petitioner has got equal efficacious remedy of Revision under Rule 54 of CISF Rules, 2011 and in view of this writ petition in question should not be entertained. In order to consider the objection which has been so raised Rule 54 of CISF Rules, 2011 is being quoted below: 54. Revision -Any authority superior to the authority making the order may either on his own motion or otherwise call for the records of any enquiry and revise any order made under these rules, and may - (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or (b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or (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; or (d) pass such order as it may deem fit, within six months of the date of communication of the order propose to be revised; Provided that no order imposting or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revisioning authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a rreasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (1) 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 the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969, has not already been held in the case no such penalty shall be imposed except after an enquiry in the manner laid down in the aforesaid rules. 2. The provisions of rule 52 relating to appeals shall apply so far as may be to such orders in revision. 3. Orders and instructions issued by the Central Government on this subject from time to time shall be applicable mutatis mutandis as applicable under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
(3.) A bare perusal of Rule 54 of CISF 2000 would go to show that against order passed by the Appellate Authority against the same Revision has been provided for before superior authority concerned to pass order and therein said superior authority has been conferred with authority to call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules and with further authority to confirm, modify or set aside the order and further confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed or 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 or pass such order as it may deem fit within six months of the date of communication of the order propose to be revised. Once such is factual situation that there is remedy of Revision available to the petitioner wherein superior authority has been conferred with the authority then there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the order impugned.;