JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two appeals arise out of common order passed by the learned Single Judge partly accepted the writ petition filed by respondent-petitioner Pukhraj Choudhary. Hence, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. 3. The facts giving rise to these appeals are that respondent-petitioner Pukhraj Choudhary who was initially appointed as Class IV servant on 17.7.1968 after receiving successive promotion to the post of Lower Division Clear, Accountant and Project Officer-cum-Secretary, was subjected to a departmental enquiry on a charge-sheet dated 8.1.1991. As a result of said departmental enquiry, on 28.10.1993 he was found guilty of supervisory negligence. The following punishment was imposed vide Annexure-4 : " jktLFkku flfoy lsok ( oxhZdj.k] fu;U=.k ,oa vihy ) 1958 ds fu;e 16 ds vUrxZr 'kk[kk lfpo ds in ls lqijokbZtj ds in in izkjfEHkd J`a[kyk esa inkour djus ls n.M ds nf.Mr djrk gwWa] ,oa mDr Jh iq[kjkt pkS/kjh ( fuyfEcr ) tks foyEc ls lqijokbZtj ds in ij rqjUr izHkko ls cgky fd;k tkrk gSA fuyEcu vof/k esa tks Hkqxrku gks pqdk gS mlds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ osru@HkRrk ns; ugha gksxkA " 4. In pursuance of the aforesaid punishment in the first instance, by order dated 18.11.1993 said Pukhraj Choudhary was fixed at the minimum of pay-scale applicable to the post of Supervisor by an order of Administrator at Rs. 490/- with effect from the date i.e. 29.10.1993 when the punishment became effective. 5. However, the delinquent officer made a representation that fixation of his pay at the minimum of pay-scale is contrary to award of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. He pointed out that while punishment has been imposed to revert him to the original pay-scale of Supervisor, his fixation of pay has been made at the minimum of pay-scale. It was represented by the incumbent that on the punishment of reversion to lower pay-scale, his fixation in the lower pay-scale should be at the same stage at which he was drawing salary ,1 the higher scale from which he has been reverted. 6. Finding the representation to be justified, the Administrator vide his order dated 1.12.1994 directed to fix the petitioner at the appropriate stage in the pay-scale applicable to Supervisor. Consequently, by order dated 7.12.1994 the fixation was made in the pay-scale applicable to the post of Supervisor. 7. 6. Finding the representation to be justified, the Administrator vide his order dated 1.12.1994 directed to fix the petitioner at the appropriate stage in the pay-scale applicable to Supervisor. Consequently, by order dated 7.12.1994 the fixation was made in the pay-scale applicable to the post of Supervisor. 7. The audit objection was raised in respect of payment made to the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 1.12.1994 by holding that Disciplinary Authority has no right to review his own order of punishment under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958 and therefore, the amount has wrongly been paid to the incumbent in excess what he was entitled under order dated 18.11.1993 and the recovery of such excess payment was envisaged. In pursuance of this audit objection, a notice was given to Pukhraj Choudhary on 28.8.2001 effecting recovery of Rs. 25,207.60 pointing out that revision against the show cause notice has been rejected by the Registrar, therefore, that amount be recovered from him. 8. We may further notice that a writ petition is stated to be still pending about the pay-scale applicable to Supervisor's post. The employees of the Bank claimed for revised pay-scale of Supervisor to be 490-1790, whereas the Bank contended that revised pay-scale for Supervisor was 400-1343. The interim order was passed by this Court for permitting Supervisor to draw 40 salary to the pay-scale of 490-1790. That interim order was vacated on 22.9.1994 and consequently, the pay-scale which continued to be applicable for Supervisors subject to result of pending litigation became 400-1790. It is on this premise as a result of show cause notice the petitioner was fixed w.e.f. 29.10.1993 in the minimum of pay-scale 400-1343 and thereafter, increments were allowed vide order dated 27.9.2001. 9. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, Pukhraj Choudhary preferred a writ petition claiming relief that impugned orders dated 18.8.2000, 27.9.2001 and 28.8.2001 passed by the Secretary, Pali Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank be quashed and the non-petitioners be restrained from making any recovery on the basis of said orders. 10. 9. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, Pukhraj Choudhary preferred a writ petition claiming relief that impugned orders dated 18.8.2000, 27.9.2001 and 28.8.2001 passed by the Secretary, Pali Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank be quashed and the non-petitioners be restrained from making any recovery on the basis of said orders. 10. Learned Single Judge has found that the order dated 1.12.1994 passed by the Administrator directing the fixation of petitioner's pay in cadre of supervisor at the appropriate stage of the pay-scale applicable to him was without jurisdiction as it amounted to reviewing the order of penalty and therefore, not sustainable and the fixation originally made at the minimum of pay-scale will continue to govern the petitioner's fixation. However, finding that in making excess payment on the basis of order by the Administrator dated 1.12.1994, the petitioner is nowhere responsible of any fraud, mis presentation no recovery should be made from him as amount was found legally entitlement of the petitioner by the Administrator. 11. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, aggrieved with the order of quashing recovery, the Bank is in appeal in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 169/2003, whereas the petitioner's appeal is D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 154/2003 in respect of setting aside the order dated 1.12.1994. 12. While it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that order dated 1.12.1994 was not an order of review of penalty, it merely amounted to rectification of mistake that occurred while giving effect to the penalty order by the Administration and it could not be said to be without jurisdiction. Every authority has necessary jurisdiction and is under an obligation to rectify the apparent mistake that may occur in discharge of duties and fixing the petitioner at the appropriate stage of pay-scale in which he has been reverted instead of fixing at the minimum of pay-scale, did not suffer from any illegality or want of jurisdiction, which could be interfered with by this Court. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank reiterated the audit 25 objection in support of recalling the order dated 1.12.1994 and effecting recovery. He has also challenge the order for allowing the petitioner to retain the excess payment made to him by mistake. 14. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank reiterated the audit 25 objection in support of recalling the order dated 1.12.1994 and effecting recovery. He has also challenge the order for allowing the petitioner to retain the excess payment made to him by mistake. 14. Having considered the rival contentions, we are of the opinion that from the perusal of punishment order, it is apparent that the penalty was 30 reversion of the delinquent officer to the lower pay-scale and penalty was not reversion to the lower pay scale at the minimum of that scale. That being clear position, the fixation at the minimum of pay-scale by order dated 18.11.1993 was per-se erroneous order passed by the administration while giving effect to penalty and was contrary to the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. In rectifying that mistake, the Administration has committed no mistake as he was rectifying his own administrative order in giving effect to the punishment. It could not by any stretch be said to be review of the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority under the CCA Rules. If he was wrongly implemented the order and fixed the incumbent at the minimum of 40 pay-scale, which was contrary to the punishment imposed, it was within his authority to rectify the mistake committed by him which was apparent. It cannot be said that he has reviewed the punishment. In fact, he has discharged his own obligation. His action cannot be said to be lacking inherent jurisdiction. 15. In view thereof, we find that there was no error either of jurisdiction 45 or substance in the order dated 1.12.1994 by which the correct penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was given effect to by the Administrator. in that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner incumbent deserves to be accepted. 16. There could not be two opinions on the conclusion reached that the penalty was not imposed to fix the delinquent officer at the minimum of the lower pay-scale or in the pay-scale applicable to Supervisor's post. The imposition of punishment of reversion to the lower pay- scale would appropriately mean that he would be reverted to the lower pay-scale at the same stage in which he was placed in the pay-scale from which he has been reverted. 17. The imposition of punishment of reversion to the lower pay- scale would appropriately mean that he would be reverted to the lower pay-scale at the same stage in which he was placed in the pay-scale from which he has been reverted. 17. In view of our conclusion the appeal fled by the petitioner must succeed and there being no ground to make recovery of amount paid vide order dated 1.12.1994, the appeal filed by the Bank must fail. Consequently, writ 5 petition succeeds in to. We hold that the order dated 1.12.1994 was apparently an order of rectification of a mistake which was apparent mistake In the order dated 29.10.1993 and was to give effect to the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on its own terms, vide order dated 1.12.1994, no question of review of the penalty order arose in the facts and circumstances 10 of the case. As the Registrar in his order dated 26.7.2001 has refused to interfere on the ground that a general correspondence and therefore, it does not call for interference. has no reflection on merit of the writ filed by the petitioner incumbent. That order in fact paved the way for filing the writ petition, as the authority to whom he has approached by way of seeking redress against an 15 order which affected him adversely. the decision Registrar, therefore, cannot affect the result to which we have reached. Consequently, the impugned orders and notice are quashed. The Bank is restrained from making any recovery and directed to refix the salary of the petitioner applicable to Supervisor at the same stage at which he was placed in higher placed in the 20 higher pay-scale on 28.10.1993. 18. As a result, the Appeal No. 169/2003 is dismissed and the Appeal No 154/2003 is allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs.Appeal of Bank Fails - Writ Petition allowed. *******