WP/8223/2000 of P. RAJARAM Vs 1. DIRECTOR GEN., CENTRAL INDL on 5 December 2002

:J U D G M E N T

The petitioner had joined Central Industrial Security Force asSub Inspector/Executive in 1985 and in course of time he was promoted asInspector. While he was posted at CISF Unit, SHAR Centre, Sriharikotta, departmental proceeding was initiated and four articles of charge were framedagainst him. After enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Thepetitioner had filed W.P.No.17284 of 1999 in this Court. Said writ petitionwas disposed of on 6.12.1999 with observation that the petitioner shouldprefer appeal before the appellate authority. Thereafter the petitionerpreferred appeal before the Inspector General, south West Sector, CentralIndustrial Security Force, Bombay. The appeal was rejected by order dated29.4.2000. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed challengingthe order of dismissal as confirmed in appeal.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents refuting the contentions raised in the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in course of hearing raised several contentions challenging the order of dismissal.Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has submitted that by virtue ofThe Central Industrial Security Force (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1999(Act No.40 of 1999) a specific provision has been made for filing revision andsince alternative remedy is available, the present writ petition should not beentertained.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the other hand has submitted that in law, Revision is not considered as an alternativeremedy and therefore, this technical ground is not available to be raised. Hehas further submitted that at any rate the writ petition itself having beenentertained in the year 2000 and having been remained pending for about 2years, it would not be proper to consider the bar relating to existence ofalternative remedy.

5. As per Section 6 of the Amending Act, in Section 9 of the Principal Act, sub Section (2A) and (2B) have been inserted. Section 9(2A)and (2B) after the aforesaid amendment are as follows :- “ ... (2A) Any enrolled member of the Force aggrieved by an order passed in appeal under sub-section (1) may within a period of six months fromthe date on which the order is communicated to him, prefer a revision petitionagainst the order to such authority as may be prescribed and in disposing ofthe revision petition, the said authority shall follow such procedure as maybe prescribed.

(2B) The authority, as may be prescribed for the purpose of this sub-section, on a revision petition preferred by an aggrieved enrolled memberof the Force or suo moto, may call for, within a prescribed period, therecords of any proceeding under section 8 or sub-section (2) or sub-section(2A) and such authority may, after making inquiry in the prescribed manner,and subject to the provisions of this Act pass such order thereon as it thinksfit”.

A perusal of the aforesaid provisions make it clear that a statutoryprovision has been made for filing revision by the aggrieved person. Section9(2B) also confers a suo motu power of revision on such revisional authority.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

revisional remedy being a discretionary remedy, cannot be characterised as analternative remedy so as to bar the jurisdiction of the High Court underArticle 226 of the Constitution of India. It is no doubt true that in somestatutes a suo motu revisonal power is vested in the authority but no right isconferred on an aggrieved party to prefer revision and as such it has beenheld in some cases that existence of such revisional power cannot beconsidered as alternative remedy.

7. In the present case, as it is seen from the provisions already extracted, 9(2A) confers statutory right of filing revision and tothat extent it cannot be said that the revisional jurisdiction is only adiscretionary jurisdiction of the authority. Moreover, in the present casemany of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitionerrelate to determination of some factual aspects and it would be moreappropriate for the revisional authority to go into such aspects as it be in abetter position to do so compared to the limited scope for such examination bya writ in Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the writ petition having been entertained and having been kept pending, therespondents should not be permitted to raise question of alternative remedy atthis stage. In the present case, the respondents were not represented at thetime when the writ petition was entertained. Therefore, merely because a writpetition was entertained at a stage when the respondents were not heard, itcannot be said that subsequently the respondents would be precluded fromraising the question relating to availability of alternative remedy.Moreover, it is quite possible that the provision relating to alternativeremedy of revision which was inserted by amendment on 29.12.1999 was notwithin the knowledge of the petitioner or the learned judge.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the observation that it would be open to the petitioner toprefer revision before the appropriate authority as laid down in Section 9(2A)of the Central Industrial Security Force (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1999.As per the aforesaid provision, a Revision is to be filed within a period ofsix months from the date of communication of the order. Since a writ petitionwas filed in May, 2000 and the matter remained pending before this Court,Revision petition if filed within a period of two months from to-day shall beentertained by the revisional authority without raising the question oflimitation. It goes without saying that the Revision petition should bedisposed of on merit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible,preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of therevision petition.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposedof. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.12042 of 2000 is closed.

1. Director General,Central Industrial Security Force,C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.

2. Inspector General,Central Industrial Security Force,R.C.F., Chembur, Bombay.

3. Deputy Inspector General,Central Industrial Security Force,(South Zone) ‘D’ Block,Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar,Chennai 90.

4. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force,SHAR Centre, Sriharikotta (A.P.)