1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3655 of 2015 1 - Subodh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Arbind Prasad Yadav, Aged About 46 Years R/o. West Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Railway Department, Vallabh Bhawan, New Delhi. 2 - Inspector General-Cum-Chief Security Commissioner, S.E.C.Railway, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, 3 - Divisional Security Commissioner, South Eastern Railway, Raipur Chhattisgarh, 4 - Assistant Security Commissioner, R. P. F. S. E. C., Railway, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Inspector-Cum- Enquiry Officer, R. P. F. Post, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 14/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief:- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to decide the departmental revision of the petitioner as pending before him within stipulated period by quashing the order dated 30.03.2015 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was working as Constable with Railway Protection Force (RPF), Raipur was served with the memorandum of charge-sheet dated 7/8.02.2013 leveling three charges against him. The petitioner replied the charges, when the reply is not found satisfactory, a departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner which resulted into an order of punishment dated 24.01.2014 by the Assistant Security Commissioner, R.P.F. S.E.C. Railway, Raipur (Annexure P-4) by which the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of withholding of one increment for two years. The said order of punishment was subject to challenge before the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Security Commissioner, SEC Railway, Raipur. The appeal filed under Rule 212 of Railway Protection Force, 1987 (for short “Rules of 1987”) of the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 01.12.2014. Against the order of appellate authority the petitioner preferred a revision before the Revisional Authority i.e. Inspector General-Cum-Chief Security Commissioner, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur on 05.03.2015, however, the same was returned being barred by limitation and no sufficient cause for delay was offered. The communication was made by Divisional Security Commissioner RPF, South Eastern Central Railway, Raipur. He further submits that the revision was preferred under Rule 219 of Rules of 1987 and revision ought to have been filed within a period of 30 days and expiry of period for making a specific word in Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and according to Sub-Section (2) of Section 9, the period for entertaining an appeal is 30 days and the same can be entertained after expiry of 30 days if the appellate authority is satisfied and the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause for filing the appeal in time and submits that return of revision without any express order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that according to Rules of 1987, period for filing a revision was 30 days and the revision was filed by delay of 60 days, therefore, there is no illegality in impugned order (Annexure P-1). 3 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The factual scenario in this case is not in dispute. Admittedly the petitioner was inflicted with penalty as stated above against which he preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which also got dismissed by it on 01.12.2014 and the same was received by the petitioner on 06.12.2014. Annexure P-6 is the memo of revision which indicates that it said to have been filed on 05.03.2015 before the Inspector General-Cum-Chief Security Commissioner, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur. Therefore, the record indicates that the revision appears to be barred by 60 days. The pleadings of the revision also indicates that the petitioner was engaged in his domestic duties and therefore, revision could not be filed in time. Annexure P-1 is the communication by Divisional Security Commissioner dated 30.03.2015 impugned herein which indicates that the revision was returned as it was not filed within limitation it does not indicate that any finding recorded by the Revisional Authority on the cause shown by the petitioner in his revision petition. By a cryptic non speaking communication, the revision of the petitioner was returned. In the opinion of this Court the delay was not inordinate or intentional, therefore, the cause of justice demands that if the delay is bonafied and the person able to show the sufficient cause for the delay, it should be liberally construed by the authority. Therefore, the communication dated 30.03.2015 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. The petitioner is granted liberty to submit his revision to respondent No.2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such submission of the revision, it is directed that respondent No.2 shall decide the same in accordance with law within a further period of 90 days from the date of its receipt on its merit without insisting on limitation. 6. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 7. With the above observation the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.07.17 11:52:07 +0530