Judgment : M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. This writ petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby a direction was given originally to the third writ petitioner to consider the revision application dated 31.3.2004 within a time schedule and thereafter, the same was rectified whereby the first writ petitioner was directed to consider the revision application. 2. The writ petition is filed under the following circumstances:- (i) The first respondent, a retired Senior Section Engineer/Drawing, was charge sheeted, while he was working as Chief Draughtsman under the department, on the allegations of imputation of mis-conduct and over-payment of the Contractors bill. He was imposed with a penalty of withholding of two annual increments for a period of two years. On appeal, the same was confirmed. Challenging the same, he preferred a revision before the the third petitioner on 31.3.2004 and the same is still pending. (ii) Under such circumstances, he moved the Administrative Tribunal for passing necessary orders. Considering the submissions made by the parties, the Tribunal thought it appropriate to issue direction to the Revisional Authority to consider the revision application dated 31.3.2004 within the time schedule. Aggrieved over the same, this writ petition has been brought forth by the petitioners. 3. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that originally a revision was preferred before the Revisional Authority, who suo-motu revised the appellate order and challenging the same, an appeal was preferred before the General Manager, who has permitted the first respondent to prefer a revision before the Board. While there was no Rule available to prefer the second revision, it should not have been permitted. When the matter was broughtforth before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal has also issued direction to the Railway Board to consider the revision within a time frame and hence the said order has got to be quashed. 4. Contrary to the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/delinquent submitted that it was an appeal preferred and there from a revision would lie and apart from that, pursuant to the orders, a revision could be filed within 45 days there from, which has been preferred. The third petitioner, who has to simply forward the revision application to the Board, has not done the same and thus, the matter is pending for about four or five years. The third petitioner, who has to simply forward the revision application to the Board, has not done the same and thus, the matter is pending for about four or five years. Despite the orders of the Tribunal, the revision has not been taken into consideration, which is contrary to the order and hence this writ petition has got to be dismissed. 5. After hearing the submissions made by either side, the Court is of the considered opinion that the question, whether the present revision would lie or not, could be considered by the petitioners-Railway Board. But, having been a party before the Central Administrative Tribunal where a direction has been given to consider the revision application, which was pending for nearly four or five years, it should be considered and disposed of. Apart from that, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for delinquent, revision has been filed only pursuant to the orders of the General Manager, Hence, it would be fit and proper to direct the Railway Board to dispose of the revision application. Accordingly, the first petitioner/Railway Board is directed to dispose of the revision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, keeping it open the question as to whether the revision is a second one or the first revision, as contemplated and envisaged under the Rules. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected W.P.M.P. is closed. No costs.