Allowed¶58

The Director General of Central Industrial Security Force v. Shri.R. Sateesha

Service law – CISF Rules, 2001, Rule 54(e) – revisional jurisdiction

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2025WA/220/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Rule 54(e) CISF Rules 2001; revisional authority; six-month limitation; date of communication versus date of order; penalty enhancement; Constable CISF; writ appeal allowed; service matter (S-RES); Karnataka High Court Division Bench; neutral citation NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB; W.A. No. 220 of 2024; decision dated 15.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed of as allowed; the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7261/2012 set aside. ¶58

The Director General of Central Industrial Security Force Vs Shri.R. Sateesha — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal disposed of as allowed; the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7261/2012 set aside.

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether, under Rule 54(e) of the CISF Rules, 2001, the six-month period for the revisional authority to pass orders runs from the date of the order proposed to be revised or from the date of its communication to the enrolled member, and consequently whether the revisional order dated 11.02.2008 was within time when the order dated 28.07.2007 was communicated on 17.08.2007. +1 more

¶50

Court's answer

Under sub-clause (e) of Rule 54 of the CISF Rules, 2001, the six-month period within which the revisional authority may pass orders runs from the date of communication of the order proposed to be revised and not from the date of that order; the order dated 28.07.2007 having been communicated on 17.08.2007, the revisional order dated 11.02.2008 was within the stipulated period of six months.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7261/2012 is contrary to Section 54(e) of the CISF Rules, 2001 and is therefore liable to be set aside; the writ appeal is allowed.

¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - CISF Rules, 2001, Rule 54(e) - revisional jurisdiction - limitation of six months. A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (V Kameswar Rao and S Rachaiaha, JJ., judgment per V Kameswar Rao, J.) allowed the writ appeal filed by CISF authorities and set aside the learned Single Judge's order dated 21.09.2023 in W.P. No.7261/2012, which had quashed the penalty-enhancement orders (Annexures-G and H). Held: the six-month period prescribed by Rule 54(e) for the revisional authority to pass orders runs from the date of communication of the order proposed to be revised, not from the date of that order; the order dated 28.07.2007 was communicated on 17.08.2007, and hence the revisional order dated 11.02.2008 enhancing the penalty was within time. The Single Judge's contrary view was held to be contrary to Section 54(e) of the CISF Rules, 2001, and the impugned order was set aside.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶11

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, WAR MEMORIAL, ANNA SQURE, CHENNAI-01,

¶12

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR, (DOS HEAD QUARTERS) GENERAL CISF, ANTARIKSHA BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE-560 094.

¶14

THE COMMANDANT, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY), CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, VSSC (VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE), THUMBA, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA-695 022.

¶15

THE ASSITANT COMMANDANT, DISCIPLINARY AUTHOITY, C.I.S.F,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024

¶17

LPSC LIQUID PROPULSION SYSTEM CENTRE, VALLAMALA POST, NEAR NEDEUMANGADU TALUK, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA-695 547.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI.S.R.DODAWAD, CGC FOR APPELLANTS)

¶20

AND:

¶21

SHRI.R. SATEESHA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA, CONSTABLE NO.911402094, OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT, ISAC ISRO, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. G.S.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED FINAL ORDER DATED 21.09.2023 IN WP NO.7261/2012(S-RES), PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONB’LE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-G AND H AND C (II) CONSEQUENTLY UPHOLD THE ANNEXURES-G AND H AS VALID AND LEGAL (III) GRANT COSTS THROUGH OUT AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and

¶26

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024

¶28

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶29

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶30

The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 21.09.2023, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein by stating in Paragraphs-9,10,11 & 12 as under:

¶31

“9. However, an argument is advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent that Rule 54(e) of the Rules states that the Revisional Authority is required to pass an order within six months of the date of communication of the order proposed to be revised. She submits that the order of penalty was communicated to the petitioner on 17.08.2007, and therefore, the order passed on 11.02.2008 would be within the time limit prescribed under Rule 54(e) of the Rules.

¶32

10. In my view, this argument is untenable. It is to be noticed here that the date of communication of the order to the petitioner would be of no consequence since the Revisional Authority has suo motu exercised the power to enhance the penalty, and therefore, the date of the order that was sought to be revised would be

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024

¶34

the relevant date and not the date on which the order was communicated to the petitioner. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order enhancing the penalty cannot be sustained, and accordingly, the orders at Annexures-G & G are quashed.

¶35

11. The increments, if any, withheld or denied to the petitioner shall be computed and paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

12. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.”

¶37

The submission of the learned counsel for the

¶38

appellant is that, in terms of Rule 54 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 ( in short ‘ CISF Rules, 2001’), which is Revisional Jurisdiction, sub-clause (e) stipulates that the Revisional Authority can within six months of the date of communication of the order propose to be revised can exercise the jurisdiction of revision and thereby

¶39

revise the order passed by the authorities below.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024

¶42

3. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition

¶43

on an interpretation to Clause (e), which reads as under:

¶44

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶45

“(e) pass such orders as it may deem fit, within six months of the date of communication of the order propose to be revised;

¶46

Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revisioning authority unless the enrolled member of the Force concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of rule 34 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, and if any, inquiry under Rule-36 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 has not already been held in the case no such penalty shall be imposed except after an enquiry in the manner laid down in the aforesaid rules.”

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024

¶49

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the

¶50

appellant is that, it is from the date of communication of the order propose to be revised that the revisional authority, can, within six months, revise the order and not from the date of the order. According to him, the revisional order was passed on 11.02.2008. According to him, the same was within six months from the date of communication (order sought to be revised) of order on 17.8.2007 revising the penalty.

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent do not

¶52

contest the fact that the order dated 28.07.2007 was actually communicated to the respondent on 17.08.2007. If that be so, the order dated 11.02.2008

¶53

was within the period of six months as is stipulated in sub-clause (e) of CISF Rules, 2001. The order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to Section 54(e) of CISF Rules, 2001. Accordingly the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024

¶56

No.7261/2012 is liable to be set aside. We order

¶57

accordingly.

¶58