IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9533 of 2011 DURGA BAHADUR SARKI @ DURGA BAHADUR, S/O- HANK LAL SARKI, NO. 9383607 LNK/GD, „F‟ COY 18TH BATTALION, SSB, BIRPUR, SUPAUL (REMOVED) Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL, BIRPUR, SUPAUL. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, S.H.Q., SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL, PURNEA. 4. THE COMMANDANT, 18TH BATTALION, SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL, BIRPUR, P.S. + DISTRICT- SUPAUL. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT, 18TH BATTALION, SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL, BIRPUR, P.S. + DISTRICT- SUPAUL 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, “F” COPY, 18TH BATTALION, SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL, BIRPUR, P.S. + DISTRICT- SUPAUL. For the petitioner : Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, ASG. ----------- 2 21.06.2011 Petitioner assails order dated 26.5.2010 (Annexure-3) passed by the Disciplinary Authority in a disciplinary proceeding inflicting punishments. He also assails the appellate order dated 27.1.2011 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent No. 3. It is contended that the appellate order is cryptic inasmuch as it does not deal with all the issues raised in the memo of appeal (Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit). Mr. Raghib Ahsan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Rules governing the case of the petitioner provides remedy in terms of Rule 29 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 2 Rules). Rule 29 of the Rules reads as under: “29. Revision.-(a) A member of the Force whose appeal has been rejected by a competent authority may prefer petition for revision to the next Superior Authority. The power of revision may be exercised only when in consequence of some material irregularity, there has been injustice or miscarriage of justice or fresh evidence is disclosed. (b) The procedure prescribed for appeals under sub-rules (c) to (g) of rule 28 shall apply mutatis mutandis to petitions for revision. (c) [The next superior authority] while passing orders on a revision petition may at its direction enhance punishment: Provided that before enhancing the punishment the accused shall be given an opportunity to show cause why his punishment should not be enhanced: [Provided further that on order enhancing the punishment shall, for the purpose of appeal, be treated as an original order except when the same has been passed by the Government in which case no further appeal shall lie, and an appeal against such an order shall lie- (i) to the Inspector General, if the same has been passed by the Deputy Inspector General; and (ii) to the Director General if the same has been passed by the Inspector General; and (iii) to the Central Government, if the same has been passed by the Director General] (d) [The Director General [ or Additional Director General] or the Inspector-General] or the Deputy Inspector General may call for the records of award of any punishment and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same, or make or direct further investigation to be made before passing such orders; Provided that in a case in which it is proposed to enhance punishment, the accused shall be given an opportunity to 3 show cause either orally or in writing as to why his punishment should not be enhanced.“ It is thus seen that the petitioner has a forum to ventilate his grievance which can appropriately be considered by the authorities. In that view of the matter, this Court declines to interfere with the order impugned in the present writ petition. Needless to observe that if any such revision is preferred by the petitioner within 06 weeks from today along with a copy of present order, the concerned authority/revisional authority shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merit in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)