THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12196 of 2010 Date: 02.06.2010 Between : A. Enose Rajan … Petitioner And Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12196 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings No.11014/CISF/GHH/APPL-11/A.E.R-GHH/ 2010/1372, dated 15.5.2010, issued by the 4th respondent, confirming the proceedings No.V-15014/CISF/Min.01/AER-GHH/ADM-4/2010/094, dated 12.4.2010, issued by the 5th respondent as arbitrary and illegal. 3. The petitioner is working as Inspector (Ministerial) in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). On certain allegations, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by framing two charges. The 5th respondent has passed final orders in proceedings No.V-15014/CISF/Min.01/AER-GHH/ADM-4/2010/094, dated 12.4.2010, in exercise of the powers conferred under C.I.S.F. Rules, 2001, imposing the punishment of withholding of one increment of pay for one year which will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay. Against the said final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 4th respondent, who by proceedings No.11014/ CISF/GHH/APPL- 11/A.E.R-GHH/2010/1372, dated 15.5.2010, confirmed the punishment imposed by the 5th respondent. Challenging the said orders, the present writ petition is filed. 4. When the matter is called, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that after passing order dated 15.5.2010 by the 4th respondent-appellate authority, the petitioner has filed a revision before the 3rd respondent invoking the power under Rule 54 of the C.I.S.F. Rules. It is also stated that Office Memorandum No.V-150/GHH/Revision/AER- GHH/Admn.IV/10/1440, dated 25.5.2010, was issued to the petitioner to submit another copy of the revision petition for taking further action. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that another copy as sought by respondent Nos.4 and 5 was already submitted to the authorities. 5. Though it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is passed vindictively by the 5th respondent, against whom malafides are alleged by making him as a party by name as respondent No.6, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has already filed a revision before the 3rd respondent and the same is pending consideration. When the petitioner has already invoked the revisionary jurisdiction under Rule 54 of the C.I.S.F. Rules questioning the orders of the primary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority, and when such revision is pending consideration, he cannot be permitted to question the very same order before this Court. 6. Since it is stated that the impugned orders are passed only to deprive promotion to the petitioner to the higher post and that already the revision petition filed by the petitioner is pending consideration, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 to transmit the revision papers filed by the petitioner, forthwith, to the 3rd respondent and with a further direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the revision petition filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY 02.06.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12196 of 2010 02.06.2010 (Msr)