CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18058 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 Swinder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Kushaldeep S. Sandhu, Advocate for Mr. H. S. Kathuria, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is serving in Central Industrial Security Force. While detailed on duty at Musafirkhana, District Sultanpur U.P., he is alleged to have used abusive language against Sub Inspector Tulsi Ram. The petitioner was charge sheeted and enquiry was ordered. After holding enquiry, the petitioner was imposed the penalty of withholding of two increments on 12.2.2010. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 25.6.2010. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision on 18.9.2010. While the revision was pending, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18058 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: to await the decision in the revision petition. Instead, on 1.4.2011, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner submitted his reply on 21.5.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner has been ordered to be compulsorily retired on 7.7.2011. He has accordingly filed the present writ petition to impugn this order. The petitioner has raised a one fold submission to challenge this order on the basis of provision of Rule 54 of the CIFS Rules, 2001 (for short, “the Rules”). Rule 54 reads as under:- “54. Revision-Any authority superior to the authority making the order may either on his 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, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty where no penalty 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 enquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such order as it may deem fit, within six months of the date of communication of the order propose to be revised.” As per the petitioner, his case would fall under clause (d) of Rule 54 and the counsel accordingly contend that the order could have been passed within 6 months of the date of communication of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18058 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: the proposed order to be revised. The submission as made is wholly misconceived. The power of the revisional authority to confirm, reduce or to enhance or set-aside the penalty imposed by an order or to impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed is clearly provided under Rule 54(b) of the Rules. Considering the nature of allegations proved against the petitioner, the revisional authority has decided to enhance the penalty imposed on the petitioner and has accordingly ordered the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. This order is clearly passed in exercise of power of the revisional authority under the rules and, thus, can not be interfered on the ground as pressed before me. There is no other plea raised at the time of arguments. This plea can not be accepted in view of the clear provision contained in the Rules. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine. September 26, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE