M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner who was Police Constable in the City armed Reserve Police has prayed for quashing the order of Deputy Commissioner of Police, City Armed Reserve police, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service,, which o,rder has been confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Police. ( 2 ) A disciplinary proceeding was instituted against the petitioner on the ground of unauthorised absence. The unauthorised absence was from 6-5-1978 for a period of one month. On 6-6-1978 an order was made declaring the petitioner as deserter. In the enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner of police imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal from service against him. The Commissioner of Police dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and did not even consider that it was a fit case in which at least regarding the quantum of punishment interference was called for by him. Thereafter, the petitioner presented a revision petition to the Government under S. 25 of the Karnataka Police act, 1963. The revision petition was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by these orders, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. As it appeared to me, that the order of the Government dismissing the revision petition on the ground that it was barred by time, was patently erroneous, I directed the government Advocate to take notice and to satisfy me that any period of limitation was fixed under the Act or under the Rules framed thereunder for preferring a revision petition under S. 25 of the Act. Accordingly Sri B B. Mandappa, learned High Court Government pleader, appeared for the respondents. By consent of both the counsels the petition is taken up for final hearing. ( 4 ) S. 25 (1) of the Act provides for an appeal against any order imposing penalty under S. 23 of the Act to the government or any prescribed officer, as Government may by general or special order specify. Sub-section (2) of S. 25 empowers the Government to revise an order made under S. 23 of the Act either suo motu or otherwise. It is under this provision the revision petition was presented by the petitioner to the Government. No period of limitation has been fixed under S. 25 of the Act for preferring a revision petition. Sub-section (2) of S. 25 empowers the Government to revise an order made under S. 23 of the Act either suo motu or otherwise. It is under this provision the revision petition was presented by the petitioner to the Government. No period of limitation has been fixed under S. 25 of the Act for preferring a revision petition. Under the Karnataka Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965, also no period of limitation has been fixed for presenting a revision petition under S. 25 (2) of the Act. Rule 11 of the said Rules only prescribes the period of three months limitation for an appeal under S. 25 of the Act. Therefore, it is clear that there is no period of limitation prescribed either under the Act or under the Rules for the presentation of a revision petition under S. 25 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the order of the government rejecting the revision petition on the ground that it was barred by time suffers from a patent error of law. It is seen that the revision petition was preferred, by the petitioner on 22-l-19'80 after the appellate, order of the Commissioner of Police dated 6-8-1979 was served on him. The government should have disposed of the! revision petition on merits. In particular the contention of the petitioner that on the facts of the case the quantum of penalty was excessive, had great force and it was a matter which should have been considered and decided by the Government judiciously ( 5 ) SHRI B. B. Mandappa, High Court government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that because both appeal and revision are provided under S. 25 of the Act and the period of limitation is prescribed for an appeal under rule 11 of the Rules, the said limitation is also applicable to a revision petition. I am unable to agree with his contention. Sub-section (1) of S. 25 provides for an appeal and sub-section (2) of S. 25 provides for a revision petition. Rule 11 only refers to an appeal under s. 25 which means only an appeal preferred under sub-section (1) of s. 25 and not a revision petition under sub-section (2) of S. 25. Appeal and revision are distinct and separate remedies provided under the Act. I am unable to agree with the contention that the limitation prescribed lor an appeal is also applicable to a revision petition. Appeal and revision are distinct and separate remedies provided under the Act. I am unable to agree with the contention that the limitation prescribed lor an appeal is also applicable to a revision petition. ( 6 ) IN the result, I pass the following order: (I) Writ petition is allowed. (II) The impugned order of the State government dated nil September 1980 (Annexure-C) is quashed. (III) The State Government is directed to dispose of the revision petition on merits. Shri B. B. Mandappa, High Court government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks. --- *** --- .