- (1.) The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force. He was charge sheeted on the ground of certain alleged misconduct. Departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Upon completion of the said department proceeding, the petitioner was awarded punishment by the disciplinary authority on 29-9-1992 to the extent "withholding of next increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect". The petitioner filed an appeal there against before the Commandant, Centra Industrial Security Force Unit. The said authority by reason of the order dated 6-1-1993 dismissed the said appeal. The Deputy Inspector General, CISF, however exercised his suo inotu power of revision as contained in Rule 49 of the Centra Industrial Security Force Rules and by order dated 20-3-1993 observed : "After consideration of the reply of the charge sheet the disciplinary authority i.e. Deputy Com mandant, CISF Unit., IISCG, Burnpur awarded the punishment of "withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect vide final order No. V-15015/Minor/DC/92/76 dated 29-9-1992. Being aggrieved with the punishment the individual tiled an appeal to the Commandant CISF Unit IISCO, Burnpur. His appeal petition was considered and rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order No. V-15015/Adm TT/CISF/92/66 dated 6th Jan. 1993 3. The undersigned in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 49(1) of CISF Rules, 1969 suo motu reviewed the case. On perusal of the case it is revealed that No. 8405307 Const. Wakul Singh misbehaved with a Subordinate officer and man handled him without any provocation on 12-9-1992. in the CISF Lines. Insubordination in a disciplined Force like CISF is a serious offence and the same is required to be dealt with deterrently in order to maintain a high degree of discipline. I find that in the instant case the individual Has been dealt with leniently. 4. In view of the above, the punishment and appellate orders passed by the Deputy Commandant, CISF and the Commandant, CISF Unit, IISCO, Burnpur respectively are hereby set aside. Commandant, CISF Unit, IISCO Burnpur will now draw up the proceeding against the individual for his in-disciplinary activities under Rule 34 of CISF Rules, 1969 and deal with the case accordingly."
(2.) Thereafter another disciplinary proceeding was initiated wherein the petitioner was dismissed from service. His appeal was also dismissed. The question which has been raised 111 this application is as regard the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 to exercise the said power.
(3.) There cannot be any doubt that by reason of any statute, a higher authority can be granted a jurisdiction to review the order passed by his (sic) subordinate in suo motu. It is also a settled principle of law that before he does so and passes an order detrimental to the su Dora in ate officer the minimum requirement of the principal of natural justice must be complied with. A bare perusal of the order dated 22-3-1993 as contained in Annexure 'C' to the affidavit in-opposition clearly goes to show that no such opportunity of hearing was given. A revisional authority normally exercises his suo motu jurisdiction if there exists a cogent reason;