JUDGMENT 1. In the year 1956 the petitioner was employed as an Inspector in the armed wing of the Railway Protection force and was stationed at Gondia. The respondent No. 4 was at that time the Assistant Security Officer at Bilaspur. The respondent No. 4 caused to be served on the petitioner four successive charge-sheets, one dated 21/9/1956, another dated 25/10/1956 and the other two dated 17/11/1956, charging the petitioner, inter alia, with inefficiency, carelessness, incompetency, falsification of muster roll and failure to do his duty. Thereafter, on December 2, 5 and 6, 1956 there was departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner by the respondent No. 4 himself, in spite of protests made by the petitioner to the effect that the respondent No. 4, being himself the accuser, should not conduct the enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner was found guilty of all the charges and the respondent No. 4 recommended that the petitioner be reverted from the post of inspector to that of a Sub-Inspector. Thereupon, by a notice, dated 22/1/1957, the petitioner was asked to show cause why he should not be punished with reversion from the post of Inspector to that of Sub-Inspector. On the petitioner showing cause against the punishment proposed, the respondent No. 3, Security Officer, South Eastern Railway, did not inflict on the petitioner the punishment of severity as proposed but merely punished him with forfeiture of "all remaining passes and P. T. O. 's for 1957". The aforesaid order of penalty was passed on 14/5/1957. 2. Prior to his posting at Gondia the petitioner was posted at Shalimar, between September, 1955 to May, 1956, and was entrusted with putting down a particular type of crime which was then rapidly is creasing in or around the area of Shalimar Goods shed. In February, 1956, while the petitioner was on leave, the Inspector-General of Police came on inspection at Shalimar and found the state of affairs at Shalimar post very unsatisfactory. Thereupon, he asked the respondent No. 5, an Assistant security Officer, thoroughly to check up the position at Shalimar and the latter in course of his checking up made certain adverse remarks against the petitioner. Thereupon, he asked the respondent No. 5, an Assistant security Officer, thoroughly to check up the position at Shalimar and the latter in course of his checking up made certain adverse remarks against the petitioner. On receipt of the adverse remarks against the petitioner, respondent No. 3, Security Officer, South eastern Railway, passed the following order of censure against the petitioner, 22/6/1957: "R.N. Bose, I.P.F., C.K.P. is censured for his slackness in not detecting the irregularities as pointed out by the C. S. O. (?) during his inspection of S. H. M. post on 21/5/1956. " At this stage, the petitioner alleges, the respondent No. 3, H. L. Finnimore, Security officer, went on leave and the respondent no. 4 became the acting Security Officer in his place and the latter induced the respondent No. 2, the Chief Security Officer, to re-open the charges against the petitioner over again. The Chief Security Officer thereupon passed the following two orders against the petitioner. I Order forwarded to the petitioner on 9/9/1957, hereinafter referred to as the Order of the 9/9/1957. "I have seen the proceedings file and final order. Although it is not obligatory for the officer signing the charge-sheet not to be the one to hold enquiry, it has been laid down as desirable. In the present case it is all the more desirable that the enquiry should be held by another officer. Secondly the punishment imposed by the Security Officer for the charge framed is disproportionately light. Exercising my revisionary power, I set aside the order of punishment and order that the enquiry should start from the stage of reply to the charge-sheet. " 3. The aforesaid order has reference to the charges against the petitioner, dated 21/9/1956, 25/10/1956 and 17/11/1956. II. Order dated 22/9/1957: "I have seen the Area Order No. 82/da/57 dated 22-6-57 passed by the Security Officer, Kharagpur awarding censure to Shri R. N. Bose, I. P. F., Chakradharpur. In the exercise of my revisionary power I cancel the censure order as the delinquency should form the subject matter of a departmental proceedings which is ordered. "against the aforesaid two orders the petitioner obtained this Rule limited to the following three grounds: "(1) That the Chief Security Officer had no power to set aside the order of punishment and order that the enquiry should start from the stage of reply to the charge-sheet. "against the aforesaid two orders the petitioner obtained this Rule limited to the following three grounds: "(1) That the Chief Security Officer had no power to set aside the order of punishment and order that the enquiry should start from the stage of reply to the charge-sheet. (2) That in any event the punishment and/or major part of it having undergone, no such order could be made. (3) That the orders dated 9/9/1957 and 22/9/1957 are bad. " 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner is governed by the Railway Security Force (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1959. Under rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules censure and withholding of the privilege of passes and/or privilege ticket orders are both penalties, which may, for good and sufficient reason, be imposed on a member of the Railway security Force. Under Rule 5 of the said rules powers of officers to impose penalty are herein below set out: "5. (a) The Railway Board or the general Manager of a Railway have full powers under these rules for the imposition of any of these penalties specified in rule 4 above on a member of the Railway security Force; (b) The Chief Security Officer may impose all the penalties specified in rule 4 above on all members of the Railway Security Force of and below the rank of inspector, temporarily or permanently subordinate to him; (c) A Security Officer may impose all the penalties specified in rule 4 above on all Class III and IV members of the Railway Security Force temporarily or permanently subordinate to him except the penalties of dismissal or removal in the case of Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors. In all cases in which it is proposed to dismiss or remove an Inspector or Sub-Inspector, the matter shall be reported by the Security Officer concerned to the chief Security Officer for final orders. " Rule 28 of the said Rules is to the following effect: "28. (a) The Railway Board, or a General Manager, or a Chief Security Officer shall have the power on their own motion or otherwise to revise any orders passed by an authority subordinate to them. " Rule 28 of the said Rules is to the following effect: "28. (a) The Railway Board, or a General Manager, or a Chief Security Officer shall have the power on their own motion or otherwise to revise any orders passed by an authority subordinate to them. (b) When any of the authorities referred to in (a) above, proposes to enhance the penalty imposed on a member of the Railway Security Force, otherwise than as a result of an appeal preferred to him, he shall communicate his intention to the accused concerned, with the reasons therefor, and call upon him to show cause why this enhanced penalty should not be imposed. After considering the reply of the individual concerned to this communication, he shall pass such orders as he thinks fit. " In the instant case, the punishment in respect of the charges, dated September 21/9/1956, 25/10/1956 and 17/11/1956, were inflicted on the petitioner by the security Officer, respondent No. 3. That was not in contravention of Rule 5 (b) of the Rules, because Rule 5 (c) authorises the security Officer to inflict lesser penalties (that is to say, penalties other than dismissal and removal) on an officer of the rank of the petitioner. The Chief Security Officer, however, found that the enquiry as to the aforesaid charges, made by the officer signing the charge-sheet, that is to say, by the accuser himself, was undesirable and therefore set aside the same in exercise of his power of revision. Rule 28 (a) clothed the Chief Security Officer with ample powers to revise any order passed by an authority subordinate to him and the order of 9/9/1957 was passed in exercise of that power. The real grievance of the petitioner in respect of the order, dated 9/9/1957, is two-fold, firstly, the observation in the order-sheet, that the penalty inflicted on the petitioner, namely, the forfeiture of his remaining passes and privilege ticket orders was "disproportionately light", pre-judged the petitioner to a severe penalty, even before the commencement of the new enquiry into the charges ordered against him, and secondly, the order passed by the Chief Security Officer that the enquiry should start again from the stage of reply to the charge-sheet may make the petitioner undergo a fresh penalty, after he had undergone part of the penalty originally imposed. So far as the first grievance is concerned, I am of the opinion that the same is not wholly without substance. Under Rule 28 (b), if the Chief Security Officer was minded suo motu to enhance the penalty imposed on the petitioner, he could only do so after calling upon the petitioner to show cause why an enhanced penalty should not be imposed and after considering the cause shown by the petitioner. He did not do so but off-hand came to the conclusion that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was "disproportionately light". This, in my opinion, the Chief Security Officer was not entitled to observe without going deeper into the matter and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to justify the penalty imposed or to show cause against any proposed enhancement of the penalty. The other grievance made against the order, dated 9/9/1957, has no substance in it. It was the duty of the Chief security Officer to see that the petitioner was punished only according to the procedure prescribed by law. If he came to the conclusion that an accused should not be the investigating officer and therefore set aside the enquiry report, he cannot be blamed therefor. Also he had the power under Rule 28 (a) to make the order that he did. 5. I have now to consider another aspect of the matter. The order of forfeiture of passes and privilege ticket orders was passed on 14/5/1957. The order setting aside the penalty was made on September, 1957. During these four months the petitioner suffered the forfeiture order. It was contended before me that the petitioner must not be penalised again after having suffered the original punishment or a part thereof for about four months. In my opinion, this argument is not of substance. The suffering undergone by the petitioner may affect the quantum of the punishment to be inflicted upon him, if at all, after the completion of the fresh enquiry. At the fresh enquiry he may not be found guilty and in that case no question of infliction of another penalty on him will arise. Even if he be found guilty of the charges over again, the authority may, in all fairness, take into consideration the suffering already undergone by the petitioner, when imposing any other order of penalty. At the fresh enquiry he may not be found guilty and in that case no question of infliction of another penalty on him will arise. Even if he be found guilty of the charges over again, the authority may, in all fairness, take into consideration the suffering already undergone by the petitioner, when imposing any other order of penalty. I believe the petitioner may also be compensated by money on account of the loss suffered by him by reason of any unlawful order of forfeiture of passes and privilege ticket orders imposed on him. I, therefore, repel the contention made on behalf of the petitioner that inasmuch as he had undergone a part of the original penalty imposed on him, no order of fresh enquiry on the same charge can be made. I now turn to the order, dated 22/9/1957, by which the Chief Security officer cancelled the order of censure passed against the petitioner without giving him any opportunity to show cause and without starting regular departmental proceeding against him. I wonder why the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order, which is wholly in his favour unless of course the petitioner feels that he was let off much too lightly, regard being had to the gravity of the allegation against him. In my opinion, the censure order was passed against the petitioner in utter disregard of the procedure prescribed by the rules and was opposed to all canons of natural justice. The Chief Security officer acted rightly, in the exercise of his revisional power, in directing a regular departmental enquiry into the allegations on which the petitioner had been irregularly censured. 6. In the view that I take I make this Rule absolute only in part. I quash so much of the order, dated 9/9/1957, whereby the Chief Security Officer observed that "the punishment imposed by the Security officer for the charge framed is disproportionately light". Save as to that I find no other reason to interfere with the orders made on September 9/9/1957 and 22/9/1957. Let a writ of certiorari issue quashing the aforementioned portion of the order, dated 9/9/1957. There will be no order as to costs in this Rule.