Judgment :- 1. By consent of both sides, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The prayer in this Writ Petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the first respondent vide G.O (2D) No.20, School Education (Me.Ni.Ka.1) Department, dated 13.04 2007 and his letter No.8353/A1/2007-17, dated 31.08.2007 and to quash the both the orders, consequently direct the first respondent to promote the petitioner as District Educational Officer, over and above the petitioners immediate junior V. Natarajan, by according all other benefits including new scale of pay applicable for District Educational Officer, increments and all other monetary and attendant benefits w.e.f. 30.07.2007. 3. The case of the petitioner is that while he was functioning as Lecturer in the District Institute of Education and Training, Kothagiri, Nilgiri District during 1991-92, he held additional charge of Principal of the District Institute of Education and Training, due to which, he was a Chairman of the selection of students for admission to the Diploma in Teacher Training Course. On the allegation of lapse in the procedure in selection, the petitioner was charged under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, pursuant to the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 20.11.1994. The petitioner gave a reply on 212. 1994 and denied the charges. Considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent passed final order on 012. 2000 and treat the same as minor lapse committed due to oversight and issued a warning with further condition that the same shall not be repeated in future. According to the petitioner, except the said warning, he was not having any other allegation against him, (luring his entire service, i.e. from the year 1978. The panel was drawn on 01.01.2007 for promotion to District Educational Officer and the petitioners name was placed in serial number 12. Subsequently in the promotion list, his name was deleted. .4. The second respondent included the name of the petitioner in the panel eligible for promotion to the category of District Educational Officer on seniority basis. The panel was drawn on 01.01.2007 for promotion to District Educational Officer and the petitioners name was placed in serial number 12. Subsequently in the promotion list, his name was deleted. .4. The second respondent included the name of the petitioner in the panel eligible for promotion to the category of District Educational Officer on seniority basis. The petitioners name has been recommended for inclusion in the panel above V. Natarajan, whose name is found in serial number 24, however, when the promotion order was issued on 30.07.2007, the petitioners name was not found on the ground of issuance of the impugned order, dated 13.04.2007, wherein the first respondent modified and enhanced the punishment of warning to that of withholding the increment for one year without cumulative effect in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules and the petitioner is also denied the promotion post of District Educational Officer by order, dated 31.08.2007, on the ground that due to the currency of the punishment, his name was not included in the panel. The same is intimated to the petitioner by first respondent, by Letter No.8353/A1/2007-17, dated 31.08.2007. Both the orders are challenged in this Writ Petition with a consequential prayer to direct the respondents to accord all benefits to the petitioner, including promotion, increment and other benefits with effect from 30.07.2007, on the date of promotion given to his junior, namely V. Natarajan. 5. The impugned order of punishment and denial of promotion is challenged on two grounds, namely the suo mote action was taken by the first respondent, after a lapse of seven years and the same is unreasonable and the same has caused great prejudice to the petitioner, particularly when he was eligible to be promoted as District Educational Officer, based on his seniority. The second ground of attack is that the petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing by the first respondent before enhancing the punishment from one of warning to that of withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect. 6. The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein, it is stated that since punishment imposed by the first respondent is of minor in nature, no notice or opportunity of hearing has to be provided, while exercising power to review suo motu revising the order of punishment. 6. The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein, it is stated that since punishment imposed by the first respondent is of minor in nature, no notice or opportunity of hearing has to be provided, while exercising power to review suo motu revising the order of punishment. For the delay of seven years in suo motu reviewing the order of punishment, no explanation is stated submitted by the first respondent in the counter affidavit. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that only due to the pendency of the punishment imposed, the petitioner is denied the promotion post of District Educational Officer. .7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be heard, while the first respondent is exercising his powers under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules and the delay in initiation of the suo motu power caused great prejudice to the petitioner and therefore, the same should be treated as unreasonable and unexplained delay and the consequential rejection of promotion are to be set aside. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the first respondent has got every power to review the order or punishment suo motu under Rule 36 of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules and the same having been exercised, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the same and the petitioner is also not entitled to get promotion due to the enhancement of punishment ordered by the Court. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 10. The charge leveled against the petitioner is framed under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, under which only minor penalty can be imposed. For imposing minor penalty, no enquiry need be conducted and based on the explanation received, orders can be passed. Further, Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules contemplates revision of orders by the appellate authorities and higher authorities. For imposing minor penalty, no enquiry need be conducted and based on the explanation received, orders can be passed. Further, Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules contemplates revision of orders by the appellate authorities and higher authorities. The said Rule is extracted here under: "Revision of Orders by the Appellate Authorities and the Higher Authorities.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules: — .(i) the State Government; or .(ii) the head of the department directly under the State Government, in the case of a Government servant serving in a department or office under the control of such head of the department, or departments; or (iii) the Appellate Authority, other than the State Government, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised; or (iv) any other authority specified in this behalf by the State Government by a general or special order, and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order – may at any time, either on their or its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and after consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, where such consultation is necessary, revise any order made under these Rules, and may — .(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or .(b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or .(c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further enquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or .(d) pass such other orders as they or it may deem fit : Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revising authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making his representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv), (v) (c), (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Rule 8 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, and if an inquiry under sub-rule (b) of Rule 17 has not already been held in the case no such penalty shall be imposed except after an inquiry under sub-rule (b) of Rule 17 has not already been held in the case no such penalty shall be imposed except after an inquiry in the manner laid down in the said sub-rule (b) of Rule 17 which shall be subject to the provisions of sub-rule (c) thereof, and except after after consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, where such consultation is necessary." 11. The punishment imposed in the suo motu Revision is enhancing the punishment from one to that of withholding of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The Rule does not provide any reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for making representation, as the punishment imposed is a minor penalty; however, the suo motu power can be exercised by the first respondent within a reasonable time. In this case, after about seven years, the suo motu power is exercised by the first respondent. 12. A similar provision regarding suo motu power when can be exercised was considered by the Honble Supreme Court in the decision State of H.P. v. Rajkumar Brijender Singh, 2004 (10) SCC 585 , wherein in paragraph 6, the Supreme Court considered a similar issue of suo motu revision exercised by the Government after 15 years. Paragraph 6 of the Judgment reads as follows: "6. We are now left with the second question which was raised by the respondents before the High Court, namely, the delayed exercise of the power under sub-section (3) of Section 20. As indicated above, the Financial Commissioner exercised the power after 15 years of the order of the Collector. It is true that sub-section (3) provided that such a power may be exercised at any time but this expression does not mean there would be no time-limit or it is infinity. All that is meant is that such powers should be exercised within a reasonable time. No fixed period of limitation may be laid but unreasonable delay in exercise of the power would tend to undo the things which have attained finality. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case as to what is the reasonable time within which the power of suo mot action could be exercised. For example, in this case, as the appeal had been withdrawn but the Financial Commissioner had taken up the matter in exercise of his suo mot power, it could well be open for the State to submit that the facts and circumstances were such that it would be within reasonable time but as we have already noted that the order of the Collector which has been interfered with was passed in January 1976 and the appeal preferred by the State was also withdrawn sometime in March 1976. The learned counsel for the appellant was not able to point out such other special facts and circumstances by reason of which it could be said that exercise of suo niotu power after 15 years of the order interfered with was within a reasonable time. That being the position in our view, the order of Financial Commissioner stands vitiated having been passed after a long lapse of 15 years of the order which has been interfered with. Therefore, while holding that the Financial Commissioner would have power to proceed suo motu in a suitable case even though an appeal preferred before the lower appellate authority is withdrawn, may be, by the State. Thus the view taken by the High Court is not sustainable. But the order of the Financial Commissioner suffers from the vice of the exercise of the power after unreasonable lapse of time and such delayed action on his part nullifies the order passed by him in exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 20." 13. In the decision reported in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy, 2003 (7) SCC 667 , also similar provision was considered by the Supreme Court with regard to the power of suo motu review. In paragraph 12 and 13, it has been held as follows : "12. The learned Single Judge has referred to and relied on various decisions including the decisions of this Court as to how the use of the words "at any time" in sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act should be understood. In the impugned order the Division Bench of the High Court approves and affirms the decision of the learned Single Judge. Where a statute provides any suo motu power of revision without prescribing any period of limitation, the power must be exercised within a reasonable time and what is "reasonable time" has to be determined on the facts of each case. 13. In the light of what is stated above, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was right in affirming the view of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the suo motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Act is to be exercised within a reasonable time." 14. From the above referred judgment, it is evident that suo motu power can be exercised within a reasonable period. From the above referred judgment, it is evident that suo motu power can be exercised within a reasonable period. What is a reasonable period, depends upon each and every case and as stated supra, in this case, the second respondent passed the order in the year 2000 and based on the seniority, the petitioner is eligible to be included in the panel for the promotion to the post of District Educational Officer and therefore, great prejudice is caused to the petitioner due to the delay in initiation of suo motu power by the first respondent. Hence, the impuged order passed by the first respondent exercising suo motu power under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, after a lapse of about seven years is found unreasonable and consequently, the impugned order of punishment enhancing the punishment from one of warning to that of withholding increment for one year without cumulative effect is set aside. It is the specific case of the petitioner as well as the respondents that only due to the currency of the said punishment, the petitioner was not given the promoted post of District Educational Officer, as he is otherwise eligible to the post as per his seniority. The same is also made clear in the Letter No.8353/A1/2007-17, dated 31.08.2007 of the first respondent. Hence, Admittedly, the petitioners junior V. Natarajan was given promotion, by order, dated 30.07.2007, hence, the petitioner is eligible to be promoted as District Educational Officer and the respondents are bound to pass revised orders regarding the petitioners promotion as District Educational Officer. 15. The Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner as District Educational Officer as ordered above, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.