JUDGMENT : U.N. Sinha, C.J. and K.B.N. Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has applied under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, complaining of two ORDER :s passed against him on 5th March, 1970 (Annexure 11) and 29th July, 1970 (Annexure 19). The first ORDER :was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Bihar Branch, Patna, forfeiting the petitioner's increments of pay for three years falling, consecutively. It was stated that after this ORDER :, the first increment of pay will accrue to the petitioner after a lapse of three years from the date of this ORDER :. The second ORDER :was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, awarding a higher punishment of removal from service. The ORDER :stated, however, that this removal from service will not be a disqualification for further employment under the Government. It may be stated, at this stage, that the ORDER :passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police was passed on reviewing the first ORDER :passed on the 5th March, 1970, under Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The only point, which requires consideration in this case, is whether Rule 29 was followed or not and hence the facts and circumstances relevant for such consideration are given below. A Departmental proceeding had been started against the petitioner on the charge mentioned in Annexure 3, dated the 9th October, 1969. The charge stated that on the facts mentioned in it, the petitioner had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and had contravened Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. An enquiry had followed on this charge and ultimately the disciplinary authority, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation, Bihar Branch, Patna, had passed the ORDER :, dated the 5th March, 1970, incorporated in Annexure 11. The charge framed against the petitioner was taken to have been proved, but in view of certain mishaps in the family of the petitioner, the minor penalty envisaged by Rule 11(iv) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, was awarded. The charge framed against the petitioner was taken to have been proved, but in view of certain mishaps in the family of the petitioner, the minor penalty envisaged by Rule 11(iv) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, was awarded. Although, the ORDER :of the disciplinary authority could be appealed from under Rule 24, no appeal was filed by the petitioner, the grievance being that an appeal could not be filed in absence of the report of the inquiring officer. However, a notice, dated the 14th May, 1970 (Annexure 15) was issued to him by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, respondent no. 4, for the purpose of reviewing the original ORDER :passed, under Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. This notice to show cause mentioned that this respondent had provisionally come to the conclusion that present petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service and so it was proposed to impose on him the penalty of dismissal from service. The notice stated, further, that the present petitioner was being given an opportunity of making a representation on the penalty to be imposed on him, but only on the basis of the evidence adduced during the enquiry. On receipt of this notice to show cause, the petitioner filed his petition showing cause, dated the 20th July, 1970 (Annexure 18). Many points were taken by the petitioner in this petition showing cause, even challenging the regularity of the enquiry held by the inquiring officer and praying that he may be exonerated from the charge on which the proceeding had been taken against him. Thereupon, the ORDER :, incorporated in Annexure 19 followed by which the petitioner has been awarded a major penalty under Rule 11(viii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The question being one of compliance or non-compliance of Rule 29 of the aforesaid Rules, the relevant portion of Rule 29 is quoted below: 29. Thereupon, the ORDER :, incorporated in Annexure 19 followed by which the petitioner has been awarded a major penalty under Rule 11(viii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The question being one of compliance or non-compliance of Rule 29 of the aforesaid Rules, the relevant portion of Rule 29 is quoted below: 29. (1) Notwithstanding contained in these rules,-- (v) the appellate authority, within six months of the date of ORDER :proposed to be reviewed, may at any time, either on his or its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and review any ORDER :made under these Rules or under the rules repealed by Rule 34 from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred or from which no appeal is allowed, after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary, and may-- (a) confirm, modify or set aside the ORDER :; or (b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the ORDER :, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or (c) remit the case to the authority which made the ORDER :or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such other ORDER :s as it may deem fit: Provided that no ORDER :imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any reviewing authority unless the Government Servant 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 (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the ORDER :sought to be reviewed to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, no such penalty shall be imposed except after an inquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 14 and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the Government servant concerned of showing cause against the penalty proposed on the evidence adduced during the inquiry and except after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary: X X X X X X (2) No proceeding for review shall be commenced until after (i) the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal, or (ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred. (3) An application for review shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under these rules. It is admitted that no fresh inquiry was held by the reviewing authority and he had proceeded to decide the matter on the record as it then existed along with the show cause petition filed by the petitioner (Annexure 18). Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged on Rule 29 that holding of a fresh inquiry by the reviewing authority was necessary before the penalty awarded to him by Annexure 11 could be enhanced to one of the major penalties mentioned in Rule 11 and Shri Shreenath Singh appearing for the contesting respondents has argued, that, when an inquiry had already been held earlier, after which the disciplinary authority had passed the penalty of withholding increments of pay, there was no necessity for the reviewing authority to hold a fresh inquiry at all. According to Shri Shreenath Singh, all that was necessary for the reviewing authority to do in this case, was to afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of making a representation against the proposed penalty and that had, in effect, been done by Annexure 15, because the proposed penalty was higher than that imposed. According to Shri Singh, if a full-fledged inquiry is conducted, before the disciplinary authority awards a penalty, a needless burden will be thrown on the reviewing authority, if he has to hold a fresh inquiry before taking action under Rule 29. We do not think that the contention put forward by Sri Shreenath Singh is a valid one, because the words of Rule 29 are quite clear. The proviso, quoted above, states, that, a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed must be given to the person proceeded against and the proviso states, further that, where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the earlier ORDER :sought to be reviewed to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, no major penalty can be awarded except after an inquiry is held in the manner laid down in Rule 14. Rule 14 lays down the procedure for imposing major penalties. [It may be stated, that Rule 16 lays down the procedure for imposing minor penalties under Rule 11]. Rule 14 lays down the procedure for imposing major penalties. [It may be stated, that Rule 16 lays down the procedure for imposing minor penalties under Rule 11]. It is difficult to hold that if an inquiry has been conducted at an earlier stage, resulting in an ORDER :by the disciplinary authority, and the reviewing authority proposes to impose any of the major penalties mentioned in Rule 11, or to enhance the penalty imposed to one of the major penalties, no inquiry will be necessary by the reviewing authority. The wordings of Rule 29 are clear and categorical and it will not be correct to hold that no unnecessary burden should be placed on the reviewing authority by compelling it to hold a fresh inquiry, when an inquiry has been held earlier, followed by the imposition of a penalty by the disciplinary authority. According to Sri Shreenath Singh, if an inquiry has been held under Rule 14 for imposing a major penalty, followed by the imposition of some penalty by the disciplinary authority, no useful purpose will be served by holding a fresh inquiry by the reviewing authority. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the procedure for imposing a minor penalty has been followed under Rule 16, and the reviewing authority is of the view that major penalty should be imposed, an inquiry by the reviewing authority is compulsory and, therefore, Rule 29 cannot be interpreted on what has happened in a given circumstance, when the rule itself is clear, where it states that no major penalty can be imposed by the reviewing authority except after an inquiry held in the manner laid down in Rule 14. We are of the view that Rule 29 is clear and it ought not to be interpreted, depending on the circumstances of a particular case, when the words are mandatory and categorical, where they state, that the reviewing authority must hold an inquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 14. This must be done in all circumstances in which the reviewing authority proposes to impose a major penalty or to enhance a penalty already awarded to one of the kinds of major penalty mentioned in Rule 11. This must be done in all circumstances in which the reviewing authority proposes to impose a major penalty or to enhance a penalty already awarded to one of the kinds of major penalty mentioned in Rule 11. In the instant case, all that can be said is that a reasonable opportunity had been given to the petitioner for making a representation against the penalty proposed and that nothing else had been done. As a matter of fact, as indicated above, the notice to show cause had mentioned that the reviewing authority was going to proceed on the basis of the evidence adduced during the earlier inquiry, taking into consideration only the representation to be filed by the present petitioner. Therefore, in our opinion, the mandatory provision of Rule 29 was not followed by the reviewing authority. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged certain points to show that the inquiry conducted by the inquiring officer was irregular and illegal and that because a copy of the inquiry report had not been supplied to the petitioner, he was unable to file an appeal within time. He has also argued that many of the matters dealt with by the Deputy Inspector General in Annexure 19 have been wrongly dealt with. But, in our opinion, it is not necessary to deal with these points, as, for the reasons given above, the ORDER :incorporated in Annexure 19 must be quashed. In the result, the ORDER :removing the petitioner from service is quashed and the writ application succeeds to that effect. We do not propose to interfere with the ORDER :incorporated in Annexure 11, stopping three consecutive yearly increments of the petitioner, as this contention is given up. The parties are directed to bear their own costs of this Court. Application allowed.