JUDGMENT The petitioners of these four (4) Rules were Rakshaks (Castables) of the Railway protection Force, Eastern Railway. In March, 1969, they were arrested in connection with Asansol G.R.P.S. Case No. 10, dated March 28, 1969 under Sections 461/379 Indian Penal Code, read with Section 5 (C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ultimately the prosecution submitted a final report under Section 173 of the Criminal procedure Code and thereupon on July 15, 1969, the learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Asansol discharged the petitioners. On August 18, 1969, the Assistant Security Officer, Eastern Railway, Railway Protection Force, Asansol, issued charge sheets against the petitioners alleging serious neglect of duty while on seal checking and guarding duty in Railway Protection Force in On. Receiving Yard, Asansol from 16 to 24 hrs. on March 27, 1969. During the said duty hours a number of bags of sugar were stolen from wagons which they had failed to detect or prevent. 2. The Assistant Security Officer, Railway Protection Force, Asansol had appointed Shri B. Dubey, IPF/Crime/ASN to enquire into the charges framed against them. The petitioners had pleaded not guilty to the said charges. The Enquiry Officer by his report, dated May 24, 1972 found them not guilty. The Assistant Security Officer, Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway, Asansol, agreed with the said findings of the Enquiry Officer and ordered that the cases against them be closed. 3. On July 18, 1972, the Security Officer, Railway, Asansol issued memos stating that in terms of Rule 60 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 he had reviewed the order, dated June 28, 1972 passed by the Assistant Security Officer, Asansol and he considered that the order was not justified in view of the gravity of the offence which warranted a severe punishment. He had come to the provisional decision that the petitioners should be punished with 'Dismissal from services' as specified in Clause (a) of Rule 41 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959. The petitioners were given 15 days time from the date of receipt of the said memos to show cause as to why the proposed penalty should not be inflicted upon them. The Security Officer informed them that any representation made in that connection' would be taken into consideration before passing final orders. The petitioners were given 15 days time from the date of receipt of the said memos to show cause as to why the proposed penalty should not be inflicted upon them. The Security Officer informed them that any representation made in that connection' would be taken into consideration before passing final orders. The Security Officer along with the said memos forwarded the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the copy of the order, dated July 13, 1972 passed by him containing reasons for review of the petitioners' cases under Rule 60. 4. The petitioners had submitted explanations to the said memos issued by the Security Officer under Rule 60. On October 17, 1972, the Security Officer issued dismissal notices to the petitioners. He stated that after considering their explanations to the show cause notices he had decided that they were guilty of the charges and they should be dismissed from services as disciplinary measure and the same would take effect from October 15, 1972. The petitioners were asked to hand-over the Railway properties, if any, in their possession: The petitioners were also asked to vacate the staff Quarters in their occupation. The Security Officer recorded detailed reasons for holding that through serious negligence of the petitioners a theft of 23 bags of sugar had occured on March 27, 1969 and they should be dismissed from services. 5. Thereafter, the petitioners obtained these Rules, inter alia challenging their dismissals from service. Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the above review orders under Rule 60 of the Railway Protection Force Rules passed by the Security Officer were without jurisdiction and invalid. According to Mr. Mondal, the Assistant Security Officer who was the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioners had agreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioners were not guilty of the charges and had closed the cases against them. When the petitioners were not punished by their Disciplinary Authority, the Security Officer exercising his revisional powers under Rule 60 could not have issued notices for enhancement of punishment. Secondly, Mr. Mondal contended that the Security Officer in revision had no power to impose upon his clients punishment of dismissal when they had been completely exonerated by the disciplinary authority. 6. In these Rules we are required to consider the scope of revision under Rule 60 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959. Secondly, Mr. Mondal contended that the Security Officer in revision had no power to impose upon his clients punishment of dismissal when they had been completely exonerated by the disciplinary authority. 6. In these Rules we are required to consider the scope of revision under Rule 60 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959. Secondly, whether a revisional Authority may reverse an order of the disciplinary authority exonerating a delinquent and dismiss him. 7. Clause (1) of Rule 60 provides that 'any authority superior to the authority making the order may, in its own motion, or otherwise, revise the order passed by such lower authority'. The proviso to the said clause prescribed that 'no action for review shall be initiated after expiry of one year from the date of the order. 8. The definite article 'the' appearing before the word 'order' in clause (1) or Rule 60 might suggest only certain classes of order and not all orders are subject to revision by the authorities superior to the authority making such orders. The words 'in its motion or otherwise' indicate that the superior authorities may act suo motu and also a member of the force himself may apply to an authority superior to his Disciplinary Authority for revision of the order of the latter authority. Naturally such an application for revision by a member of the force is likely to be directed against an order of punishment provided in Chapter IX of the Railway Protection Force Rules. Further the provisions relating to appeals under Rule 58 have been made applicable to such revision. An appeal may be preferred against an order of suspension or against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 41. No appeal has been provided against an order 'closing' a disciplinary enquiry. But whereas an appeal lies to the authority immediately superior to the authority imposing the penalty, any superior authority may revise an order of a lower authority (original-or appellate). Thus an appellate order is also subject to revision. When an Assistant Security Officer imposes a penalty, an appeal would lie to the Security Officer, who is immediately superior to the Assistant Security Officer, whereas the order of the Assistant Security Officer may be revised subject to limitation of time by the Security Officer, the Chief Security Officer and the Inspector General. 9. When an Assistant Security Officer imposes a penalty, an appeal would lie to the Security Officer, who is immediately superior to the Assistant Security Officer, whereas the order of the Assistant Security Officer may be revised subject to limitation of time by the Security Officer, the Chief Security Officer and the Inspector General. 9. The learned Advocate for the respondents submitted before me that we should read the word 'the order' in Rule 60 (1) as any order'. Otherwise it would lead to an absurdity. The learned Advocate for the respondents relied upon a passage at pp. 231-32 appearing in 'Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes' 12th Edition, it has been, inter alia. observed : "Sometimes, where the sense of statute demands it or where there has been an obvious mistake in drafting, a Court will be prepared to substitute another word or phrase for that which actually appears in the text of the Act." Even if it is held that revisional powers have been given to the superior authorities of the Force to maintain discipline, and therefore, all orders passed by their subordinate officers including orders holding a delinquent not guilty should be held to be revisable, the same cannot assist the respondents in this Rule. It is we settled that rights of appeal and revision only exist when they are created by statute. The scope - of an appeal or revision and the extent of powers of the appellate or revisional authority are also regulated by law. The Rule 60 (2) defines the extent of revisional powers. Even if the word 'the' in clause (l) of Rule 60 be interpreted to mean that all orders are subject to revision by superior authorities of the Force subject to limitation of time, still clause (2) does not empower the revisional authorities to reverse an order of closing an enquiry made by the disciplinary authority and straight away' impose the penalty of dismissal. The clause (2) of Rule 60 provides that the order imposing punishment may be (i) remitted, (ii) varied, or (iii) enhanced. The revisional authority instead of passing any remission order or variation or enhancement of the punishment, may order a fresh enquiry or for taking of further evidence. 10. Mr. The clause (2) of Rule 60 provides that the order imposing punishment may be (i) remitted, (ii) varied, or (iii) enhanced. The revisional authority instead of passing any remission order or variation or enhancement of the punishment, may order a fresh enquiry or for taking of further evidence. 10. Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate for the petitioners rightly pointed out that when no punishment had been imposed upon the petitioners by the disciplinary authority, there were no question of variation and enhancement of their punishment could arise. Show cause notices (Annexure 'D') issued by the Security Officer was wrongly described as 'notice proposing enhancement of penalty already imposed. 'At the highest, the revisional authority may order, a fresh enquiry against them or for taking of further evidence. The' revisional authority itself 'cannot reverse the order of the disciplinary authority finding the member of the force not guilty and impose the penalty of dismissal in the manner done in the instant cases. The Rule 60 does not contain any provision similar to Section 107 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which lays down that the appellate Court subject to powers specified in sub-section (1) also shall have the same power and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed on the Courts of original jurisdiction. The words of the Rule 60 of the Railway Protection Force Rules 1959 also appear to be substantially different from those of Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 and Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules 1968 Clause (i) of Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 empowers the authorities mentioned in clauses (i) to (vi) to review any order under the said Rules or under the said Rules from which an appeal is allowed, but no appeal has been preferred or from which no appeal is allowed. The Reviewing Authority under Rule 29(1) not only may confirm, modify or set aside the order, but it might confirm, reduce or enhance the penalty imposed or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed. Lastly, such authority may remit the case directing further enquiry. He may pass other orders as it might be deemed necessary. The Reviewing Authority under Rule 29(1) not only may confirm, modify or set aside the order, but it might confirm, reduce or enhance the penalty imposed or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed. Lastly, such authority may remit the case directing further enquiry. He may pass other orders as it might be deemed necessary. The Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 contains substantially similar provisions relating to review. As already stated unlike these two provisions the Rule 60 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, does not confer such wide powers of revision. The clause (2) of Rule 60 confers power upon the revising authority to remit, vary or enhance the punishment imposed or to order a fresh enquiry or taking of further evidence. The revising authority has not been, however, further empowered to impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed. The Rule does lay down that the revising authority shall have power to pass such other orders as it may deem necessary. 11. Therefore, in the instant cases, the Security Officer. Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway acted without jurisdiction by revising that order of the disciplinary authority and in dismissing the petitioners. 12. I accordingly make these Rules absolute. Let Writs of Certiorari issue quashing the order of the Security Officer, Railway Protection Force under Rule 60 of the Railway Protection Forces Rules, 1960 dismissing the petitioners from their services. Let Writs of Mandamus also issue commanding the respondents not to give any effect or further effect to the said dismissal orders. 13. There will be no order as to costs. Let the operation of this order be stayed for six (6) weeks.