Judgment :- 1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the order dated 24. 1999 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for three months without cumulative effect by the appellate authority on suo motu revision. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was issued with a charge memo by the Deputy Registrar and after enquiry, the charges were dropped by order dated 110. 1997. The appellate authority namely Registrar of Co-operative Societies initiated suo motu review and issued notice on 27. 1998 and called for objections and after considering the objections, the said punishment was imposed. The said review power having been exercised after six months the same is challenged in this Writ Petition as it is violative of Rule 36(1)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. The very same issue was considered by his lordships P.Sathasivam J, (as he then was) in Thanjavelu A., V. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Reported In 1998 (1) CTC 283 and in paragraph No.9, it is held as follows: "9. The reading of the above Rule makes the position clear that if the appellate authority wants to review the order of the Regional manager (Original authority) the same has to be done within six months from the date of the order. In this case, as seen from the proceedings of the respondent in Rc.G-4/85431/89 dated 111. 1989 i.e. beyond the period of six months prescribed under sub-clause (iii) of the above said Rules. I have already mentioned that the date of order and the review order dated 111. 1989 has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the light of the above factual position, I am of the view that the first contention is accepted there is no need to go into the other contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I am satisfied that the action of the respondent reviewing the order of the Regional manager dated 14. 1989 on 111. 1989 is clearly prohibited as per sub-clause (iii) of the above referred Rule. Hence, I hold that the proceedings initiated by the respondents on 111. 1989 is in violation of Rule 36(1)(iii) of the Rules. I am satisfied that the action of the respondent reviewing the order of the Regional manager dated 14. 1989 on 111. 1989 is clearly prohibited as per sub-clause (iii) of the above referred Rule. Hence, I hold that the proceedings initiated by the respondents on 111. 1989 is in violation of Rule 36(1)(iii) of the Rules. In those circumstances, as already stated I need not go into the other factual position. Accordingly, the impugned order based on the proceedings of the respondent dated 111. 1989 is quashed." 5. In view of the decision above cited and having regard to the uncontroverted facts i.e. initiation of suo motu review after the expiry of six months from the date of the order of the original authority dropping the charges, the initiation itself is without jurisdiction and consequently, the order passed withholding of increment for three months without cumulative effect cannot be sustained. 6. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.