JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed validity of order dated 04.07.1984 passed by the Disciplinary Authority wherein on charges of misconduct being proved against the petitioner a penally of reducing the pay of the petitioner equivalent to two grade increments on permanent basis, has been imposed. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of appellate order dated 17.12.1985 and order of Reviewing Authority dated 07.05.1994, whereby the appeal and the review petition respectively, preferred by the petitioner have been rejected. The petitioner has also claimed benefit of order dated 19.12.1990 passed by the Reviewing Authority whereby a review petition preferred against the aforesaid penally order by the principal delinquent officer, charge sheeted along with the petitioner, found guilty in a common inquiry conducted and punished by a common order, has been allowed and he has been exonerated from charges of misconduct levelled against him. 2. Briefly staled, the facts of the case are that vide memorandum dated 19.01.1983, the petitioner along with other delinquent officials including one Shri Mahendra Pal Punia, Inspector, were charged sheeted for various charges of misconduct alleged to have been committed by them. A joint inquiry was conducted against all the delinquent employees under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short "the CCA Rules" hereinafter). 3. After conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority wherein the charges of misconduct levelled against the delinquent employees were not found proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer, after due consideration of material on record found charges of misconduct levelled against the delinquent employees duly proved and accordingly vide order impugned impose the punishment as aforesaid. The appeals preferred by the petitioner and other delinquent employees were rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.12.1985. 4. The review petition preferred by the petitioner under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules, has been rejected by the Reviewing Authority as barred by time vide order dated 07.05.1994. However, a review petition preferred by the principal delinquent employee Shri Mahendra Singh had already been allowed by the Reviewing Authority vide order dated 19.12.1990 and he was exonerated from the charges of misconduct levelled against him. 5. However, a review petition preferred by the principal delinquent employee Shri Mahendra Singh had already been allowed by the Reviewing Authority vide order dated 19.12.1990 and he was exonerated from the charges of misconduct levelled against him. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the review petition preferred by the principal delinquent employee against the common order of penalty passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 04.07.1984 and the appellate order dated 20.12.1985, having been allowed by the Reviewing Authority, the review petition preferred by the petitioner should not have been rejected as barred by time. The learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact in view of the order dated 19.12.1990 passed by the Reviewing Authority on the review petition preferred by Shri Mahendra Singh, the finding of guilt recorded and order of penalty passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the petitioner automatically stands set aside inasmuch as the Reviewing Authority has set aside the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority on various charges of misconduct levelled against the delinquent employees which includes the petitioner as well. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the review petition was preferred by the petitioner after a lapse of about 9 years, therefore, the same has rightly been rejected by the Reviewing Authority inasmuch as per the provisions of Rule 34 of the CCA Rules, no action under the said rule can be initiated more than 3 years after date of the order to be reviewed. The learned counsel submitted that in this view of the matter, the order of penally passed by the Disciplinary Authority affirmed by the Appellate Authority has attained finality, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim benefit of order dated 19.12.1990 passed by the Reviewing Authority on review petition preferred by other delinquent employee. However, it is fairly conceded by the learned Additional Government counsel that in view of the order passed by the Reviewing Authority a common finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority against all the delinquent employee does not survive. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. It is to be noticed that the charges of misconduct levelled against all the delinquent employees including the petitioner and Shri Bhanwar Singh relates to an incident dated 26.(D 1982. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. It is to be noticed that the charges of misconduct levelled against all the delinquent employees including the petitioner and Shri Bhanwar Singh relates to an incident dated 26.(D 1982. The charges levelled against all delinquent employee are common except Shri Bhanwar Singh against whom an additional charge of dereliction of duly was levelled. Suffice is to say that the delinquency attributed to all the delinquent employees was common except Shri Bhanwar Singh, against whom an additional charge was levelled, therefore, a joint inquiry was conducted against all the delinquent employees on the basis of a common charge sheet issued. The Disciplinary Authority has recorded a common finding of guilt against all the delinquent employees on the basis of evidence on record. The Appellate Authority has affirmed the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. 9. A perusal of the order dated 19.12.1990 shows that the Reviewing Authority has reversed the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority holding that the delinquent was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer and the penalty imposed solely on the basis of statement of witnesses during the preliminary inquiry is violative of principles of justice. 10. It is to be noticed that the Reviewing Authority is empowered to exercise the power of review even on his own motion and after calling record of the case, may review any order which is made or is appealable under the CCA Rules. Thus, if the Reviewing Authority, has arrived at a categorical finding that the finding of guilt recorded against the delinquent employees by the Disciplinary Authority is not sustainable in eye of law, being based on evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry and the same has been found to be against the principles of justice, then, there was no reason for Reviewing Authority to restrict the setting aside of the order of penally and appellate order only qua the review petitioner Shri Mahendra Singh. If the principal delinquent employee has been exonerated by the Reviewing Authority, then, on the basis of common finding of guilt recorded by the Disciplinary Authority against all the delinquent employees, regarding common charges of misconduct levelled against them vide a common charge sheet, the order of penalty passed against other delinquent employees who are similarly situated is not sustainable in eye of law. 11. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The orders impugned dated 04.07.1984 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate order dated 20.12.1985 are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******