JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - The instant petition has been directed against the order of the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Allahabad dated 9-9-1980 stopping three increments of the petitioner (Annexure 15 to the writ petition) and the order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi dated 28-8-1981 (Annexure 18 to the writ petition) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Allahabad dated 9-9-1980. 2. The petitioner who was appointed on 20-10-1943 as a Supervisor in the Central Excise and Customs was later on promoted as an Inspector in the department of the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Allahabad vide order dated 4th November 1955. During his posting as Inspector, Central Excise and Customs at Naugarh, Basti in B. G. (Border Guard) Unit Customs, the Assistant Collector, Customs, Gorakhpur made an official visit of the Unit on 9-5-1975 and found one K. G. of Ganja and five pieces of pardah (curtain cloth of Indian origin) in the official almirah which was in possession and custody of the petitioner. It was also found by the Assistant Collector that the XT-I diary had not been properly maintained by the petitioner. The Assistant Collector not being satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner was of the view that the petitioner was in illegal possession of the articles as they were not properly sealed. The Assistant Collector, Gorakhpur again visited the Unit and endorsed on the XT-I diary the word "seen" and ante dated it as 9-5-1975. The petitioner complained to the Collector, Central Excise and Customs. Patna against this illegal action of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gorakhpur. The petitioner was later transferred some time in June 1975 to Gorakhpur and posted as Inspector, Central Excise and Customs, Gorakhpur. During such posting at Gorakhpur the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 8-10-75 issued by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Gorakhpur containing four charges viz. (i) illegal possession of Ganja; (ii) illegal possession of curtain cloth of Indian original (iii) manipulation in the diary; and (iv) making a false complaint against his immediate superior officer. A reply to the above charges was submitted by the petitioner on 18/21-10-1975 denying the charges and requesting for affording him an opportunity of personal hearing to meet the veracity of the charges contained in the aforesaid charge sheet. 3. A reply to the above charges was submitted by the petitioner on 18/21-10-1975 denying the charges and requesting for affording him an opportunity of personal hearing to meet the veracity of the charges contained in the aforesaid charge sheet. 3. On 31-10-1975 one Sri P. N. Singh, Superintendent, Central Excise was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, Sri P. N. Singh, reported to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gorakhpur that after a perusal of the records he has come to the conclusion that it is not a fit case for enquiry and recommended that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner be dropped. However, the disciplinary proceedings instead of being dropped as recommended by the Enquiry Officer Sri P. N. Singh, another Enquiry Officer Sri A. O. Sinha was appointed in his place on 29-9-1976 who commenced the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge sheet dated 8-10-1975 on 16-1-78 refuting all the charges levelled against the petitioner. On the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings the Enquiry Officer Sri A. C. Sinha submitted his report to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gorakhpur who was the disciplinary authority in the case of the petitioner, observing that none of the charges contained in the charge sheet dated 8-10-1975 were found proved against the petitioner. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gorakhpur who was the disciplinary authority in the case of the petitioner took a decision on 12-4-1978 concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer Sri A. C. Sinha and exonerated the petitioner of all the charges levelled against him. The petitioner having been exonerated of all the charges was promoted in the selection/Senior Scale by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad vide his letter dated 29-4-1978 and the promotion was to take effect from the date of the order dated 29-4-1978. The petitioner felt aggrieved against the promotion being given to him with effect from 29-4-78 and represented to the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad on 8-5-1978 contending that since the petitioner has been exonerated of all the charges levelled against him and also in view of the fact that juniors to him were promoted earlier with effect from 4-12-1976 he too is entitled to be given promotion with effect from 4-12-1976 which perhaps he could not earn on account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. 4. 4. No action whatsoever seems to have been taken on the representation of the petitioner dated 8-5-1978. Instead the Assistant Collector, Headquarters, Allahabad vide letter dated 30-9-78 addressed to the petitioner informed him that the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Allahabad proposed to review the order of the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gorakhpur dated 12-4-1978 as an appellate authority under the powers vested in him under R. 29 (i) (v) of the Central Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) and for that purpose the necessary records have been called for from the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gorakhpur. Ultimately the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad decided to review the case and initiate a fresh departmental enquiry as provided under Rr. 14 and 15 of the said rules vide letter dated 10-1-1979. It was also mentioned in the aforesaid letter dated 10-1-1979 that the Collector, Central Excise, Allahahad has come to a provisional conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in the selection grade which was given to the petitioner with effect from 29-4-1978 and the petitioner should be reduced to a lower post. Pursuant to the decision of the Collector, Central Excise and Customs Allahabad a fresh charge sheet dated 26-2-1909 was issued to the petitioner containing charges identical to those as mentioned in the charge sheet dated 8-10-1975. Petitioner has mentioned in reply to the charge sheet dated 8-10-1975 that the petitioner was exonerated of the charges as contained in the charge sheet dated 8-10-75. Anyhow the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the fresh charge sheet dated 26-2-1979 on 19-3- 79. After the receipt of the reply of the petitioner the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad appointed one Sri S. N. Pandey Superintendent, Central Excise as Enquiry Officer on 20-4-1979 to conduct the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. After enquiry had commenced and statements of a few prosecution witnesses had been recorded the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad replaced the Enquiry Officer Sri S. N. Pandey and instead appointed one Sri A. N. Banerji on 3-8-1979. After enquiry had commenced and statements of a few prosecution witnesses had been recorded the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad replaced the Enquiry Officer Sri S. N. Pandey and instead appointed one Sri A. N. Banerji on 3-8-1979. Such a change of the Enquiry Officer was vehemently protested by the petitioner who contended that this abrupt change of the Enquiry Officer was made by the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad just to obtain a particular and desired result of the enquiry against the petitioner and in order to obtain some basis for imposing a pre-proposed punishment upon the petitioner. Such protests proved to be of so avail. 5. During the course of the disciplinary proceedings pending before Sri A. N. Banerji, Enquiry Officer, a request Was made by the petitioner for supply of certain documents which was rejected and the representation to the Collector against the order rejecting the supply of certain documents was also rejected. The petitioner also complained that adequate opportunity is not being afforded to him to defend himself. However, the Enquiry Officer Sri A. N. Banerji submitted his report on 10-3-1980 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges in regard to the illegal possession of one K. G. Ganja and manipulating the XT I diary and for making a false complaint against his superior officer. The Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad concurred with the findings of Sri A. N. Banerji, Enquiry Officer and issued a second show cause notice dated 10-4-1980 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty of removal from service be not imposed upon the petitioner. The representations as regard bias' and prejudice of the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Allahabad to wards the petitioner were made to the Secretary, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi and to the President of India on 2-4-1980 and 17-6-1980 respectively, but were rejected. The Collector, Central Excise and Customs Allahabad pursuant to the said show cause notice dated 10-4-80 imposed the penalty of stoppage of three increments without any cumulative effect vide order dated 9-9-1980. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Collector, Central Excise and Customs Allahabad to the Secretary, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Allahabad to the Secretary , Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi which was rejected on 28-8-1981. 7. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the Collector, Central Excise and Customs Allahabad to the Secretary, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Allahabad to the Secretary , Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi which was rejected on 28-8-1981. 7. The petitioner thus being aggrieved by the orders dated 9-9-1980 of the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Allahabad and order dated 28-8-1981 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi has approached this Court through the instant writ petition for quashing of such orders and also for a direction to the respondents not to stop the three increments of the petitioner. 8. The case of the petitioner is that the whole enquiry as well as the order passed by the reviewing authority imposing the penalty of stoppage of three increments and the subsequent rejection of the appeal is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and is in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution. The petitioner has alleged that the earlier Enquiry Officer Sri S. N. Pandey had found that none of the charges had been made out against the petitioner and had recommended that disciplinary proceedings were liable to be dropped. In any case it was not competent for the authorities concerned to have appointed another Enquiry Officer Sri A.C. Sinha to enquire into the charges. It has further been contended by the petitioner that he was exonerated of all the charges and consequently he was promoted in the selection grade and as such afresh departmental enquiry which was initiated against the petitioner by the reviewing authority was bad in law. It has also been stressed by the petitioner that the order for review dated 10-1-1979 was biased, illegal and beyond the stipulated time. The petitioner has contended that the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad had predetermined the issue and as such the order of the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad was illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. Further it has been contended by the petitioner that no reason were recorded by the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad for arriving at a different conclusion with those of the Enquiry Officer Sri A. C. Sinha and as such also the order dated 10-1-1979 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad is unjust non-speaking and unreasonable. 9. Further it has been contended by the petitioner that no reason were recorded by the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad for arriving at a different conclusion with those of the Enquiry Officer Sri A. C. Sinha and as such also the order dated 10-1-1979 passed by the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad is unjust non-speaking and unreasonable. 9. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad denying the allegations as contained in the petition. It has been averred on behalf of the respondents that the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted in view of his misconduct in being found in illegal possession of one K.G. of Ganja, five pieces of pardah (Curtain cloth of Indian origin), manipulation of XT I diary and for making of false complaint against his superior officer. No doubt an earlier report was made for the dropping of the proceedings as proposed by Sri P. N. Singh, Enquiry Officer but the disciplinary authority was not bound by such recommendation, It has been further submitted that the Enquiry Officer Sri P. N. Singh was changed because he was due to re- tire on 30-9-1976 and further that the change was effected on the request of the Enquiry Officer Sri P. N. Singh himself. In spite of the petitioner having been exonerated of the charges by the disciplinary authority the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Allahabad was fully competent to review the case under R. 29 of the Rules and which was accordingly done. The allegation of bias and predetermination of the guilt against the petitioner by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Allahabad were categorically repudiated. It has been stressed on behalf of the respondent that there was no denial of the principles of natural justice nor the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to defend him- self. 10. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at some length. However, during the hearing of the case the controversy was confined to the order of the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Allahabad dated 30-1-1979 which was alleged to have been passed for the re- view of the case beyond the stipulated time. In a narrow compass it has to be seen whether the order for the review for initiating departmental proceedings was passed within the stipulated time. In a narrow compass it has to be seen whether the order for the review for initiating departmental proceedings was passed within the stipulated time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself only to this aspect stressing that the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges by the Assistant Collector, Gorakhpur who was the disciplinary authority of the petitioner on 12-4-1978 pursuant to the report dated 27-3-1978 submitted by the Enquiry Officer Sri A. C. Sinha. Admittedly the Collector decided to review the case as per R. 29 of the said rules, against the petitioner within the meaning of Rr. 14 and 15 of the said rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that this order of review was passed beyond six months as provided in the rules. R. 29 as to the extent necessary for our purpose is to the following effect : "29 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules : (i) to (iv) x x x x (v) The appellate authority within six months of the date of the order proposed to be reviewed or (vi) Any other authority specified in this behalf by the President by a general or special order and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order : 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 R. 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 orders as it may deem fit". 11. The relevant extract of the rule after a careful perusal would show that Cl. (v) sub-rule (1) of R. 29 empowers the appellate authority to review the case. 11. The relevant extract of the rule after a careful perusal would show that Cl. (v) sub-rule (1) of R. 29 empowers the appellate authority to review the case. It has been singularly provided that the order for such review shall be passed within six months as provided in Cl. (v) of sub-rule (1) of R. 29. There is no denying the fact that after the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges on 12-4-1978 the order for review was passed on 10-1-1979 which was manifestly against the provisions enshrined in Cl. (v) of sub-rule (1) of R. 29. It is evident that this Cl. (v) of sub- rule (1) of R. 29 empowers the appellate authority to review the case while Cl. (vi) confers identical powers on such other authority as may be specified in that behalf by the President by general or special order. Similarly no doubt the period of six months is prescribed for applying Cl. (v) of sub-rule (1) of R. 29 but no period is prescribed by Cl. (vi). 12. A careful reading of the rule extracted above would clearly show that it provides for review by more than one authority. Clause (v) of sub-rule (1) of R. 29 empowers the appellate authority to review while Cl. (vi) confers similar powers on such other authority which may be specified in that behalf by the President by general or special order. In case where the appellate authority can review the order within six months from the date of passing of the order within the intent and meaning of R. 29 Cl. (vi). 13. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that in the instant case it was intimated to the petitioner within the period of six months i. e. on 30-9-1978 revealing the intention of the authority to review the order dated 12-4-78 and for that purpose calling for the record of the case also. It has thus been urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the proceedings actually were initiated within the statutory period of six months. Such a contention stands discountenanced and is not acceptable to us for the salutary reason that the order for review was passed on 10-1-1979 apparently beyond time provided in the Rule. It has thus been urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the proceedings actually were initiated within the statutory period of six months. Such a contention stands discountenanced and is not acceptable to us for the salutary reason that the order for review was passed on 10-1-1979 apparently beyond time provided in the Rule. The calling for the record of the case or the proposal or intention to review the case would not be deemed to be a fulfilment of the requirement as provided in R. 29 (1) (v) of the said rules. Calling for the records of the enquiry would only reveal the object for examining the whole case afresh wherever it is considered necessary. It emerges that the order dated 30-9-1978 was passed for that purpose only. 14. It was further urged by the learned counsel for respondents that even assuming that no review could be made after the expiry of six months from the date of the order passed by the disciplinary authority it could not be said that the proceedings initiated by the respondents could stand barred by time. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner was intimated prior to the expiry of six months. The intention of the appellate authority to review of the order dated 12-4-78 passed by the disciplinary authority and for that purpose was to call for the records. As such it has been urged that the proceedings had commenced within the period of six months as contemplated by Cl. (V) of sub-rule (1) of R. 29 of the Rules. We are, unable to accept this plea of the respondents. It has already been seen above that the authority at any time either on his own motion or otherwise call for the record of the enquiry and re view any order made under these rules. The object of calling for the record would clearly show that the appellate authority intended to examine afresh the whole case wherever it considered or felt necessary. The mere act of calling for the records without anything more can certainly not be equated with the initiation of the proceedings for reviewing the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The object of calling for the record would clearly show that the appellate authority intended to examine afresh the whole case wherever it considered or felt necessary. The mere act of calling for the records without anything more can certainly not be equated with the initiation of the proceedings for reviewing the order passed by the disciplinary authority. It is only after the authority competent to review has decided for proceeding further and issuing a notice to the delinquent officer calling upon him to show cause why the order passed by the disciplinary authority be not review that the proceedings for review can reasonably be said to have been commenced. The authority reviewing the matter may not conclude the enquiry within six months but it is imperatively necessary that the order for review of the case should be passed indicating for the commencement of the proceeding before the expiry of six months from the date of the order sought to be reviewed. 15. We are satisfied in the case that the proceedings did not commence within the meaning of R. 29 (1) (v) of the rules i. e. within 6 months of the order dated 12-4-1978. Since it was imperative that the proceedings for review by the appellate authority be commenced be- fore the expiry of six months from the date of the order sought to be reviewed, the present proceedings were without jurisdiction and bad in law. 16. In view of the above discussion the order dated 10-1-79 for reviewing the earlier order dated 12-4-1978 was clearly against the provisions as enshrined in Cl. (v) sub-rule (1) of R. 29 of the rules and thus is liable to be quashed. Punishment awarded to the petitioner pursuant to the review is neither justified nor legal in view of the fact that the authority had no such power for review after the expiry of the period provided i. e. six months. Further in view of the order dated 9-9-1980 consequent upon the review order dated 12-4-1978 by the order dated 10-1-1979 being quashed the order dated 28-8-81 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi also deserves to be quashed. 17. Further in view of the order dated 9-9-1980 consequent upon the review order dated 12-4-1978 by the order dated 10-1-1979 being quashed the order dated 28-8-81 passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi also deserves to be quashed. 17. In the result the petition is allowed with costs and the order dated 9-9-1980 (Annexure XV to the writ petition) passed by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Allahabad imposing the penalty of stoppage of three increments without any cumulative effect and the order dated 28-8-1981 (Annexure XVIII to the writ petition) passed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi dismissing the appeal of the petitioner are hereby quashed.