Judgment :- Raju, J. Having regard to the limited question on which the writ petition came to be decided and the appeal has to be dealt with, by consent of parties, the main writ appeal has been taken up for hearing to avoid duplicated exercise. .2. The relevant facts are not in controversy. The respondent has been imposed with a punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect by an order dated 14. 1989 passed by the disciplinary authority. Not satisfied about the quantum of punishment imposed for the gravity of charges alleged, the chairman cum-Managing Director has chosen to exercise the suo motu powers of revision and on the view that the entire matter should be reopened and a de novo enquiry conducted against the respondent, the appellant purporting to exercise powers under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal Rules) set aside the order and remitted the case to the Regional Manager, Pudukottai Region for a de novo enquiry and for passing appropriate orders by framing fresh charges and observing the required formalities. Thereupon, it appears that in implementing the order of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director dated 111. 1989, action has been taken, which resulted in the passing of an order of dismissal dated 22. 1992. Aggrieved, W.P.No. 4134 of 1992 has been filed. 3. The writ petition came to be allowed on the sole ground that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation had no powers to pass any such order beyond the period of six months of the date of the order proposed to be reviewed and consequently the order dated 22. 1992 challenged was set aside and the earlier order of the Regional Manager dated 14. 1989 was restored to file. Hence, the above appeal by the Corporation. .4. Mr.A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the corporation, instructed by Mr.V. Perumal, strenuously contended that the learned single Judge was in error in his interpretation of the scope of powers and the authority of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Rule 36 if properly construed, taking into account the avowed object and also purpose of the powers of review conferred upon the competent authority, a different view alone could have been possibly taken. Argued the learned senior counsel further that it is the second limb of Rule 36(1) that applied to the case on hand and not the third limb, which only carried a restriction in the form of a time limit for exercising the powers of review, and that too on the appellate authority only and such limitation on the exercise of power of review cannot be read into the second limb of rule, which enables the Head of the Department, which is directly under the State Government, also to exercise the power of review. In order to support such a stand, the learned senior counsel invited out attention to Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Service Regulations, which enumerates authorities to impose penalties and appellate authorities in respect of various classes of punishments in respect of different classes of employees. The respondents concedingly comes under class II. As envisaged in the said rule and vis-a-vis, the punishment, namely, imposition of minor punishment, the appellate authority is only the General Manager (Administration) and if only the appellate authority in this case, namely, the General Manager invoked the power of review, the limitation of six months will got attracted and not in the case of the Head of the Department invoking such review power. 5. Mr.P.Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent merely adopted the reasonings of the learned single Judge and contended that the order of the learned single Judge is well merited on the rules as they stand and no interference is called for. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. Though we could appreciate the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the appellant-Corporation about the need for the authorities higher than the appellate authority to exercise the powers of review envisaged in the rules, unfortunately for the corporation, the language of the rule as it stands does not and cannot be claimed to come to the rescue of the learned senior counsel. The provisions contained in Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, while providing for the power of review purports to classify the power also by adopting a division of class of officers who can exercise such power with reference to class of service and also with reference to whom such power could be exercised. The provisions contained in Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, while providing for the power of review purports to classify the power also by adopting a division of class of officers who can exercise such power with reference to class of service and also with reference to whom such power could be exercised. In so doing the powers envisaged in favour of the State Government or the head of the department directly under the State Government arc concerned, the exercise in our view is relatable and confined to the case of Government servant serving in a department or the office under the control of such head of the department or department and not to all or every other class or category of service, which does not belong to such category. Consequently, in respect of those employees serving in the corporation, who are not Government servants serving in a department or office under the control of such department, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director cannot claim to exercise the power of review and it is only the appellate authority, who falls under the category envisaged under the third limb of the said Rule could alone exercise the power conferred subject to the limitation imposed therein. In view of the above, no exception, in our view, could be taken to the construction applied by the learned single Judge on the scope of the powers of review available under the Rule in question. The order of the learned single Judge, therefore, does not call for any interference in our hands. The writ appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.17995 of 1997 is dismissed.