- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, WAR MEMORIAL, ANNA SQURE, CHENNAI-01, 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR, (DOS HEAD QUARTERS) GENERAL CISF, ANTARIKSHA BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BANGALORE-560 094. 4. THE COMMANDANT, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY), CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, VSSC (VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE), THUMBA, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA-695 022. 5. THE ASSITANT COMMANDANT, DISCIPLINARY AUTHOITY, C.I.S.F, Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024 LPSC LIQUID PROPULSION SYSTEM CENTRE, VALLAMALA POST, NEAR NEDEUMANGADU TALUK, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA-695 547. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.S.R.DODAWAD, CGC FOR APPELLANTS) AND: 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. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.S.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) 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. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) 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: “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. 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024 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. 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. 12. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.” 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the 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 revise the order passed by the authorities below. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024 3. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition on an interpretation to Clause (e), which reads as under: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “(e) pass such orders as it may deem fit, within six months of the date of communication of the order propose to be revised; 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.” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the 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. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent do not 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 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1537-DB WA No. 220 of 2024 No.7261/2012 is liable to be set aside. We order accordingly. 6. The appeal is disposed of as allowed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE KGR* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52