16 . As per Rule 49 of CISF Rules sub-rule 3 clearly provides that the provisions of Rule 47 relating to appeal shall apply so far as may be to such orders in revision, meaning thereby the power of the revision has to be clearly exercised procedurally in the manner the power has to be exercised under Rule 47 (2). Rule 47 (2) clearly provides that before imposing or enhanced penalty, the authority shall invite objection or representation from the employee concerned. In the opinion of the Court, therefore, the question of imposing an enhanced penalty arises only after the order of imposing punishment is set aside and, so, before the order of punishing authority was to be set aside an opportunity of hearing was sign quo non as per the Rules. Even the show cause notice is per se illegal insofar as setting aside the order of Disciplinary Authority is concerned. Therefore, not only the authority concerned has committed manifest error in deciding issue while issuing the show cause notice but has also erred in law in issuing such a show cause notice. Even from the perusal of the order passed by the authority concerned, who had issued a show cause notice and called for reply, I find that the entire discussion in paragraph 4 of the order relates to the documentary evidence and nowhere the reply of the petitioner has been discussed. While the reply of the petitioner has been referred in paragraph 3 but while holding a discussion in paragraph 4, the authority concerned has not discussed as to how the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice was insufficient and was not
