IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17883 of 2011 Md.Wais son of Md. Mansur resident of village Bagahi P.S. Bihiya in the District of Bhojpur, Ara , posted as a constable No. 901420046, Central Industrial Security Force, Unit, NTPC, Kahalgaon in the Dist. Of Bhagalpur. ----Petitioner. Versus 1. The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Patna 2. The Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Zone, Patliputra, Patna. 3. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, K.H.S.T.P.P. Unit Kahalgaon, Bhagalpur. ---Respondents. ---------------------------------- 02 13.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent –Union. Petitioner is a constable serving the Central Industrial Security Force ( for short ‘CISF’). He was proceeded against departmentally for certain charges. On conclusion thereof, punishment in the shape of reduction of pay by 02 stages i.e. from Rs. 4050/- to Rs. 3880/- in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect was inflicted on him. An appeal thereagainst was preferred by the petitioner. The appellate authority after having noticed the charges and the findings of the enquiry officer rejected the appeal chiefly on the ground that it was time barred by more than 02 years and 06 months and no adequate cause was shown for condoning the delay. The petitioner again waited for 01 year before filing the present writ proceeding challenging the appellate order. After arguing at length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would file a revision application before the appropriate authority of the CISF in terms of Rule 54 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 ( for short ‘Rule’) which may be 2 directed to be considered on merit. It is contended that the revisional authority is entitled to invoke its jurisdiction on his own motion or otherwise also on the application of the aggrieved employee. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that if a revision is filed within the specified period the authority may consider his revision on its own merit. Having heard the parties, it appears that the provision contained in Rule 54 permits the revisional authority to act either on his own motion or otherwise on the application filed by the employee. The petitioner, therefore, is at liberty to file revision application within 04 weeks from today whereafter the revisional authority shall consider and dispose of the revision application on its own merit in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)