PARIHAR, J. - (1.) A chargesheet has been issued to the petitioner (since deceased), the concerned employee, under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules vide memorandum dated 13. 3. 1987. Disciplinary authority exonerated the concerned employee vide order dated 18. 7. 1988. However, the appellate authority issued a show cause notice to the concerned employee under Rule 32 of the CCA Rules for imposing appropriate penalty. After receiving reply to the show cause notice, the appellate authority imposed penalty of removal vide order dated 20. 3. 1989. Further revision to the State Government against the above order has also been dismissed vide order dated 25. 8. 1992. Hence, the present writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that since no penalty has been imposed by the disciplinary authority, the provisions of Rule 32 could not have been invoked by the appellate authority. The point of limitation has also been raised on behalf of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the relevant provisions of the CCA Rules. Rule 32 of the CCA Rules is reproduced here as under:      " 32. The authority to which an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 lies may, if no appeal has been preferred therefrom, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the records of the case in a disciplinary proceeding held by an authority subordinate to it and after making further investigation if necessary, revise (any order) passed in such a case and after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary- (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; (b) impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such further action or inquiry as it considers proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such order as it deems fit. Provided that- (1) An order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against enhanced penalty. (2) If the appellate authority proposes to impose any of the penalties specified in clause (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 in a case where an inquiry under rule 16 has not been held, it shall, subject to the provisions of rule 19, direct such an inquiry to be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry, pass such orders as it deems fit. (3) no action under this rule shall be initiated more than 6 months after the date of order to be reviewed. " A bare reading of the above referred rule would show that the appellate authority have the powers to take suo motu cognizance of the matter and after issuing notice, the appellate authority may pass necessary orders in regard to imposing appropriate penalty on the concerned employee. In the present matter, the appellate authority had initiated the proceedings under Rule 32 within one month of passing of the order by the disciplinary authority, as is evident from the order dated 20. 3. 1989 itself. Looking to the nature of services and allegations made against the concerned employee, since after due consideration proper discretion has been used by the appellate authority as also the reviewing authority, in the facts and circumstances, no further interference is called for by this court. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits. .;