Judgment :- Petitioner is a Constable, working in the Railway Protection Force. He was charge sheeted for stabbing a fellow constable with a broken glass bottle on 21.07.1995. 2. The disciplinary authority, after observing all formalities, imposed a penalty of removal from service with effect from 01.02.1995. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority, who is the second respondent herein. The appellate authority did not deal with the said appeal on any legal ground, but, purely on humanitarian consideration, held that the punishment was harsh and considering the old age and clean record, he took a lenient view and imposed a reduction of pay by five stages for five years with recurring effect and directed for transfer of the petitioner to another division. However, the petitioner, aggrieved by the same, sent a representation dated 15.04.1997 to the second respondent, requesting for setting aside the punishment. Thereafter, it appears, the petitioner, on advice, sent a representation dated 02.05.1997 to the Director General, who is the revisional authority and third respondent herein. The revisional authority, on receipt of the same, issued a show cause notice dated 111. 1997, asking the petitioner as to why the punishment imposed by the appellate authority should not be enhanced. The petitioner also sent another representation dated 012. 1997 against the enhancement of punishment. The third respondent, being the revisional authority, by exercise of power under Rule 219 (4) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, enhanced the punishment and set aside the order of the appellate authority and removed the petitioner from service. It is against the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. I have heard the arguments of Mr.C.Regurajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, and also perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not file any revisional application to the higher authority and he merely sent a representation to the higher authorities for consideration and under the circumstances the third respondent ought not to have issued the show cause notice, seeking for enhancement of punishment. 5. The said argument is totally misconceived, because under Rule 219 (4) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, the revisional authority being the superior authority either on own motion or otherwise can call for records of inquiry and even enhance the punishment. 5. The said argument is totally misconceived, because under Rule 219 (4) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, the revisional authority being the superior authority either on own motion or otherwise can call for records of inquiry and even enhance the punishment. This Rule is qualified only by two conditions namely, (i) such an exercise should be done within a period of one year and (ii) the person aggrieved must be given notice. Both the conditions have been complied with in the present case. 6. Considering the serious nature of misconduct of the petitioner, this Court, even on the ground of proportionality of punishment, cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, there are no merits in this Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.