JUDGMENT V.N. Khare, J. - By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has come up before this Court against the order dated 5th February 1988 lowering the petitioner from M.M.G. Scale II to J.M.C. Scale-I and fixing his basic pay at the minimum of that scale. 2. The petitioner is an employee in Allahabad Bank which is one of the nationalised banks. It appears that on the basis of certain complaints the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and was suspended pending disciplinary enquiry. The disciplinary enquiry took place and on its conclusion the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 30th June, 1987 imposed penalty of lowering the petitioner down to his basic pay by eight stages from Rs. 2625/- to Rs. 1825/- per month. On 30th Dec.1987 the Reviewing Authority served a notice on the petitioner as to why a major penalty under Regulation 4(e) of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 be not imposed on him. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the notice. Subsequently, the impugned order dated 5th Feb.1988 was passed and that is why the petitioner has come up before this Court. 3. Sri V.C. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following arguments in support of his contention :. (i) That the impugned order of punishment suffers from patent error of law on the face of record as the Reviewing authority before initiating proceedings for review of the earlier order, did not give any opportunity to the petitioner. (ii) That the Reviewing Authority was the Executive Director and not the Managing Director and, therefore, he had no power or jurisdiction to review the earlier punishment awarded to the petitioner. (iii) That the petitioner was not served with enquiry report as required under Regulation 9 of the Regulations. (iv) That the earlier order of penalty having been set aside by the Reviewing Authority, the petitioner was entitled to his salary till the second order of punishment was passed. We have heard also the learned counsel for the respondent. We deal with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in seriatim. 4. (iv) That the earlier order of penalty having been set aside by the Reviewing Authority, the petitioner was entitled to his salary till the second order of punishment was passed. We have heard also the learned counsel for the respondent. We deal with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in seriatim. 4. So far as the first argument is concerned, it is relevant to quote Regulation 18 of the Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations and Discipline & Appeal Regulations :- "Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Reviewing Authority may call for the record of the case within six months of the date of the final order and after reviewing the case pass such orders thereon as it may deem fit : Provided that :- (i) If any enhanced penalty, which the Reviewing Authority proposes to impose, is major penalty specified in clauses (e), (f), (g) or (h) of regulation 4 and an enquiry as provided under regulation 6 has not already been held in the case, the Reviewing Authority shall direct that such an enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of regulation 6 and thereafter consider the record of the enquiry and pass such orders as it may deem proper; (ii) If the Reviewing Authority decides to enhance the punishment but an enquiry has already been held in accordance with the provisions of regulation 6, the Reviewing Authority shall give show cause notice to the officer employee as to why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon him and shall pass an order after taking into account the representation, if any, submitted by the officer employee." 5. A perusal of the regulation 18 discloses that the Reviewing Authority may call for the record of the case within six months from the date of the final order and after reviewing the case pass such order thereon as it may deem fit. 6. The second provision of regulation 18 further provides that if the Reviewing Authority decides to an enhance the punishment but an enquiry has already been held in accordance with the provisions of regulation 6, the Reviewing Authority shall give show cause notice to the officer employee as to why the enhanced penalty should not be imposed upon him and shall pass an order after taking into account the representation, if any, submitted by the officer employee. 7. 7. The regulation nowhere provides that before initiating the proceedings for review, the Reviewing Authority must give an opportunity to the delinquent officer. The only requirement is that in case the Reviewing Authority proposes to impose a major penalty, but the enquiry as provided under regulation 6 has not already been held, the Reviewing Authority shall direct that such enquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of regulation 6 and thereafter an order can be passed. It is not disputed before us that an enquiry under regulation 6 has taken place. Therefore, the only thing required for the Reviewing Authority was to give notice of show cause to the delinquent officer. The Reviewing authority has show cause notice dated 30th December 1987, to which the petitioner has replied. We are satisfied that the requirement of regulation 18 was fully complied with and the petitioner was not entitled to any opportunity prior to the initiation of the proceedings for review by the Reviewing Authority. 8. So far as the next argument that order of review was not passed by the Managing Director is concerned, the petitioner has made allegation in this respect in paragraph 10 of the Writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein paragraph 10 of the writ petition has been denied. In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that since at the relevant time the Ex-chairman & Managing director had been transferred to Bank of India and the Executive Director who was next in rank was holding the charge of the duties of Chairman & Managing Director and was competent to act as Reviewing Authority. The Ministry of Finance has issued a telex message which is annexed with the counter-affidavit as Annexure- 1 directing Sri R.L.Wadhwa, the Executive Director to take over the current charge of duties of the post of Chairman and Managing Director of Allahabad Bank. Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit is the telex message to the effect that Shri R.L. Wadhwa has taken over as Chairman and Managing Director of Allahabad Bank. In view of these allegations, it cannot be said that Sri R.L. Wadhwa was not the Reviewing Authority. 9. So far as the third argument that the petitioner was not served with the enquiry report is concerned, this fact has been denied in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit. In view of these allegations, it cannot be said that Sri R.L. Wadhwa was not the Reviewing Authority. 9. So far as the third argument that the petitioner was not served with the enquiry report is concerned, this fact has been denied in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit. It is stated therein that the enquiry report was sent by registered post at the address of the petitioner which was served personally and was received by him. It was further stated that the allegation made in the petition that the impugned order did not contain the enquiry report is incorrect. In view of these allegations this argument of learned counsel must be rejected. 10. The fourth argument that the earlier orders passed have been set aside and the petitioner became entitled to salary, cannot detain us any longer. In fact the earlier order was substituted by an order enhancing the punishment. Thus petitioner was not entitled to the salary as claimed. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner then urged that the Disciplinary Authority can not pass two orders : firstly reverting the petitioner to the minimum basic sale, and secondly that he will get only subsistence allowance during the period on suspension. This argument is also not helpful. Under clause 31(b) o f the regulation 15, it is provided that in a case falling under sub-regulation (2) the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as period spent on duty unless the Competent Authority specifically directs, for reasons to be recorded in writing that it shall be treated for any specific purpose. We are of the opinion that the order dated 30th June, 1987 so far as it directs that the petitioner shall be paid subsistence allowance, is not an order of punishment but is only an order under clause 3(b) of regulation. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the order of penalty having been set aside by the Reviewing Authority on 30th December, 1987, it was not open to the Reviewing Authority to enhance the punishment as no order of punishment was in existence, This argument has no merit. Vide order dated 30th December, 1987 the Reviewing Authority only proposed to enhance the punishment after aside the earlier order of penalty in lieu therefor. 13. Vide order dated 30th December, 1987 the Reviewing Authority only proposed to enhance the punishment after aside the earlier order of penalty in lieu therefor. 13. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner made oral prayer that we should certify that it is a fit case for leave to appeal to Hon'ble the Supreme Court. We find that no substantial question arises in this case which requires decision by the Supreme Court. 15. The prayer is refused.