- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mukberjee, J. Sri Munni Lal, the petitioner, through the instant writ petition challenged the purported show cause notice dated 28-6-1990, passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, R. P. F. , Baroda House, New Delhi for enhancing the punishment of the petitioner from reduction in the time scale of pay by three stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect, which was earlier modified by the Additional Chief Security Commissioner, vide his order dated 2-3-1990, by which the punish ment awarded to the petitioner on 30-3-1989, to the extent of dismissal of the services of the petitioner, under Rule 219 (4) of the R. P. F. Rules, 1987, holding the petitioner guilty of lack of integrity and devotion of duty.
(2.) THE writ petition was initially moved before Hon'ble M. P. Singh, J. on 16-7-1990. However, at the time of moving of the writ petition, Hon'ble M. P. Singh, J, did not grant any interim order, but directed the petitioner to file his explanation in pursuance of the show cause notice dated 28-6-1990, within a period of two weeks from the said data. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, reply was submitted by the petitioner on 25-7-1990 (Annexure-16 to the amended writ petition), during the pendency of the writ petition. Thereafter, during the pendency of the writ petition final order in revision filed by the petitioner was passed by Chief Security Commissioner, R. P. F. , Baroda House, New Delhi on 30-9-1991, dismissing the petitioner from service.
(3.) AFTER the final order in revision, filed by the petitioner was passed, the writ petition together with the relevant prayer was amended and filed before this Court. The said impugned order of dismissal passed in revision, which was alleged to have been passed during the pendency of the writ petition, because of not granting any interim order at the time of moving of the original writ petition was annexed with the amended Writ petition as Annexure-17. As such, the original writ petition as well as amended writ petition are taken for hearing. Without entering into the chequerred history of the case, it is relevant to go through the interpretation of exercise of revisional power under the provisions of Rule 219 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules ). Rule 219 of the Rules is being extracted herein below : " (1) An enrolled member of the Force whose appeal has been rejected by a competent authority may prefer an application for revision to the next superior authority. The powers of revision may be exercised only when,- (a) in consequence of some material irregularity, there has been injustice or miscarriage of justice ; or (b) fresh evidence is disclosed which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing of the impugned order. (2) The procedure prescribed for consideration of appeals under Rule 21? shall, so far as may be, apply to application for revision. (3) The superior authority while passing orders on the application for revision may at its discretion enhance punishments ; Provided that before enhancing the punishment, the aggrieved member shall be given an opportunity to show cause why his punishment should not be enhanced ; Provided further that subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 212, an order enhancing the punishment shall be treated as an original order for the purpose of appeal, except when such an order has been passed by the Central Government in which case no further appeal shall lie. Where such order has been passed by the Chief Security Commissioner, appeal shall lie to the Director General and in the case of such order by the Director General, the appeal shall lie to the Central Government. (4) Any authority superior to the authority making the original order may, on its 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 ; or (b) confirm, enhance, reduce or set aside the punishment imposed by the order, or impose any punishment where no punish ment 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 inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case ; or (d) pass such other orders as if may deem fit: Provided that no action under this sub-rule shall be initiated after the expiry of one year from the date of the order aforesaid ; Provided further that no proceeding for revision shall be commenced until after- (i) the expiry of the period for making sub-section (2) of Section 9 ; or an appeal specified in (ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal hat been preferred: Provided further that in a case in which it is proposed to enhance punishment further, the aggrieved member shall be given an opportunity to show cause either orally or in writing as to why his punishment should not be enhanced. ";