JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed to set aside the order contained in Order No. V-11014/NES/LC/Rev-37/2009-1211 dated 04.02.2010 whereby the petitioner’s revision petition dated 13.02.2009 was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments submits that punishment order, appellate order and the revisional order is bad. It is his contention that the revision was taken up and the Revisional Authority has enhanced the punishment. As per him the earlier punishment was reduction of pay-scale for a period of one year which in revision has been enhanced for a period of five years, to which the petitioner is aggrieved. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Revisional Authority has jurisdiction to enhance the punishment, which the Authority has invoked. It is his contention that before enhancing the punishment proper opportunity was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not filed any appeal in terms of Rule 54(2) read with Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001. 4. Petitioner is a Constable in CISF. Now, he is in the rank of Head Constable. He was charge-sheeted on account of committing misconduct. It is alleged that he has collected bribe of Rs. 100/- from one Shri Prakash Chandra, Assistant Manager. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 28.06.2008 the petitioner was punished and the quantum of punishment was as follows: “Reduction of pay one stage from Rs. 4050/- to Rs. 3965/- in the time scale of pay 3200-85-4900 for a period of one year with further direction that he will not earn increment of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.” 5. The petitioner filed an appeal against the final order which was rejected. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision. In the revision application the punishment was enhanced. The Revisional Authority enhanced the period of one year to five years. 6. One of the argument which the petitioner contended is that in a revision petition filed by the petitioner the respondents cannot enhance the punishment. 7. To consider the aforesaid provision, I have gone through the CISF Rules. The power of revision is vested upon the Authority under Rule 54. Rule 54 read as follows: “ 54. 6. One of the argument which the petitioner contended is that in a revision petition filed by the petitioner the respondents cannot enhance the punishment. 7. To consider the aforesaid provision, I have gone through the CISF Rules. The power of revision is vested upon the Authority under Rule 54. Rule 54 read as follows: “ 54. Revision - (1) Any authority superior to the authority making the order may either on his own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules, and may – (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order. (b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed. (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further enquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) pass such orders as it may deem fit, within six months of the date of communication of the order propose to be revised. Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revisioning authority unless the enrolled member of the Force concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of rule 34 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, and if any, inquiry under rule-36 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 has not already been held in the case no such penalty shall be imposed except after an enquiry in the manner laid down in the aforesaid rules. (2) The provisions of rule 52 relating to appeals shall apply so far as may be to such orders in revision. (3) Orders and instructions issued by the Central Government on this subject from time to time shall be applicable Mutatis mutandis as applicable under Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965.” 8. (2) The provisions of rule 52 relating to appeals shall apply so far as may be to such orders in revision. (3) Orders and instructions issued by the Central Government on this subject from time to time shall be applicable Mutatis mutandis as applicable under Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1965.” 8. From the aforesaid provision it is clear that the Revisional Authority can exercise the revisional jurisdiction suo motu or may act upon a petition filed by the employee.As per the said provision the Revisional Authority has the power to confirm, modify or set aside the order and also as per Rule 54(1)(b) has also the power to reduce or enhance or set aside the penalty imposed.The Statute thus has given power to the Revisional Authority to enhance the punishment imposed also. If the punishment is proposed to be enhanced, an appropriate opportunity of hearing should be given to the delinquent employee to that effect.Thus there is no doubt that the Revisional Authority has got power to enhance the punishment. Whether the revision is at the instance of any of the parties or suo motu, the same is immaterial. It is the jurisdiction which the Revisional Authority exercises, which is important. In this case the Revisional Authority has exercised the jurisdiction and has invoked the power and has enhanced the sentence. This is not a case of exceeding jurisdiction. It is also not the case of any of the parties that before enhancing the sentence the petitioner was not given an opportunity to place his case. Ranchi Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of K.R.S. Naddar vs. Union of India and Others , 1994 (1) PLJR 823 has held that the Revisional Authority has got the power to enhance the punishment. Thus, I find no illegality in the action of the Revisional Authority of enhancing the punishment in the revision application. 9. Now the question which falls for consideration is what would be the remedy available to the petitioner once the Revisional Authority has enhanced the punishment. Rule 54(2) of CISF Rules 2001 provides that Rule 52 which relates to filing of appeal shall apply so far as it may be to such order in revision. The relevant rule is quoted in paragraph no.7 above. Rule 54(2) of CISF Rules 2001 provides that Rule 52 which relates to filing of appeal shall apply so far as it may be to such order in revision. The relevant rule is quoted in paragraph no.7 above. This means that if the delinquent is aggrieved by the quantum of punishment which has been enhanced in revision, he may file an appeal before the next higher officer in terms of Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001. In this case the Revisional Authority was the Inspector General of CISF. Since the petitioner’s punishment has been enhanced, the petitioner should have invoked Rule 54(2) read with Rule 52 of the CISF Rules, 2001. As per the respondents the petitioner has not invoked the same rather has rushed to this Court. 10. In my view, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the Appellate Authority in terms of the aforesaid provision as while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court normally should not interfere with the quantum of punishment. The appellate power under Rule 52 of the CISF Rule 2001 is vast as the Appellate Authority can look into the facts of the case, the misconduct and the gravity of charge vis-à-vis the quantum of punishment. 11. Since the petitioner has not approached the Appellate Authority, in terms of Rule 54(2) of the Act, I direct the petitioner to file an appeal before the officer next higher in rank, who will consider the appeal of this petitioner on merits and pass an appropriate order on the same. It is made clear that the petitioner should file an appeal within four weeks from today which will be considered as per the law by the Authority before whom the appeal is filed. The Appellate Authority will try to dispose of the appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.