ORDER D. V. Sylendra Kumar, J. Writ petition by an employee of the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, who, it appears, was inflicted with certain punishment pursuant to the holding of a domestic enquiry for examining certain misconducts on the part of the petitioner while in the service of the Corporation. 2. The Disciplinary Authority having found the petitioner guilty of the charges had inflicted the punishment of stoppage of three increment with cumulative effect and also recovery of a sum of Rs. 60,344/- from the petitioner, being the proportionate loss to the Corporation attributable to the negligent conduct of the petitioner. 3. Petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, had preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority in terms of Regulation 18 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees’ (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (for short, ‘the Regulations’). It appears, the petitioner met with some success, as the appeal was allowed in part. In terms of the order dated 16-3-2006, the Appellate Authority while set aside that part of the order directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 60,344/- from the petitioner, confirmed the other part of the order viz., imposition of punishment of stoppage of three increments. 4. It is thereafter, it appears, the petitioner had filed a review petition before the Appellate Authority purporting to be in terms of Regulation 27 of the Regulations, seeking for review of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority having not acted on the request of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of mandamus to direct the Appellate Authority to pass orders on the review application. 5. Submission of Ms. Naffesa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the review application has been filed in terms of the statutory provision, viz., Regulation 27 of the Regulations; that the Appellate Authority is duty-bound to dispose of the review application promptly at least within a reasonable time; that even though more than one year has elapsed from the date of filing of the application for review, the respondent-Appellate Authority not having passed any order on the application, the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court for issue of a writ of mandamus for directing the Appellate Authority to act and to pass orders on the review petition. 6. 6. In this regard, learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Regulation 27 of the Regulations, which reads as under: “27. Review of orders in disciplinary cases.-The authority to which an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Regulation 9 lies, may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of the case in a disciplinary proceedings, review any order passed in such a case and after consultation with the Board, where such consultation is necessary, pass such order as it deems fit, as if the Board employee had preferred an appeal against such order: Provided that no action under this Regulation, shall be initiated more than six months after the date of order to be reviewed”. 7. A perusal of the above provision clearly reveals that it enables the authority to which the appeal lies like the respondent herein, to act as reviewing’ authority in respect of the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority either on its own or at the instance of an interested person, like the petitioner. The review power is conferred on the authority in respect of the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority and not in respect of any other proceedings. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner in fact availed of the appellate remedy under Regulation 18 of the Regulations. The Appellate Authority did examine such appeal and the petitioner got some relief also. It is thereafter the petitioner has filed an application under Regulation 27 of the Regulations. On perusal of the provision, I am of the clear opinion that a review of the present nature as filed by the petitioner does not lie in terms of Regulation 27 of the Regulations. The review power is a power that can be exercised only on being conferred by a statutory provision and not in any other manner. The power conferred under Regulation 27 of the Regulations is to review the records and proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority, in respect of which the Appellate Authority can act as a reviewing authority. The Appellate Authority has no power to review its own orders. What is sought before the Appellate Authority is to review the order passed by the very Appellate Authority, which is not permitted or possible under Regulation 27 of the Regulations. The petitioner cannot invoke the appellate power and thereafter seek review of the appellate order. The Appellate Authority has no power to review its own orders. What is sought before the Appellate Authority is to review the order passed by the very Appellate Authority, which is not permitted or possible under Regulation 27 of the Regulations. The petitioner cannot invoke the appellate power and thereafter seek review of the appellate order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the application filed for reviewing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as that order no more remains in existence independently, having merged with the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 9. No merit in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly.