Judgment :- 1. The petitioner had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, by filing Original Application No.9412 of 2000, challenging the order of removal from service. The said Original Application was transferred to the file of this Court on abolition of the Tribunal and renumbered as W.P.No.32056 of 2005. 2. The petitioner, M.Rajendran, while serving as a Village Administrative Officer in Uthamanoor Village, Illayangudi Taluk, Sivaganga District, was trapped and arrested on 29.08.89 at 8.30 hrs. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, on the ground that he demanded and accepted Rs.50/- as bribe from Santhiagu S/o Soosai, Kodimangalam Village, for recommending transfer of patta in the name of Santhiagu in respect of his land in S.No.149/8 of Kundukulam Village. Therefore, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed a criminal case against him and charge sheet was laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivaganga. But, the said criminal case was ended in acquittal by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The disciplinary authority, after receiving the enquiry officers report, imposed with a punishment of censure, in his proceedings dated 15.03.96. Since the said order of punishment of censure was imposed without the presence of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption and without the investigating officer, the Appellate Authority, the Commissioner of Revenue Administration having seen that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated, set aside the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the matter was remanded to Revenue Divisional Officer for initiating disciplinary proceedings from the stage at which the technical irregularities had crept in. Again, fresh charges were framed against the delinquent officer and thereafter, the enquiry officers report was received. But the report of the enquiry officer did not find him guilty. On that basis, the disciplinary authority/Revenue Divisional Officer sought for concurrence of the Government to drop further proceedings in this case. Again, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, in his letter No.Rc.Services (V) (3)47082/97, dated 03.04.2000, by observing that the enquiry officer has not conducted the proper enquiry by following the procedure laid down in Rule 109 of Vigilance Manual and Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, directed to conduct further enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner again submitted his detailed explanations. The enquiry officer/Special Tahsildar (DRS) Manamadurai, after conducting the enquiry in the presence of investigating officer, submitted his report dated 09.11.2000. Therefore, the petitioner again submitted his detailed explanations. The enquiry officer/Special Tahsildar (DRS) Manamadurai, after conducting the enquiry in the presence of investigating officer, submitted his report dated 09.11.2000. Since the enquiry officer found him guilty, the disciplinary authority passed an order removing the petitioner from service by order dated 27.11.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the Original Application on the file of the Tribunal, challenging the order of removal from service. The Tribunal, while entertaining the Original Application, passed an interim order of stay against the order of removal from service. In view of the interim stay granted by the Tribunal, the petitioner is still continuing in service as of today. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when a criminal case was filed against the petitioner for an allegation of illegal demand and acceptance of Rs.50/-as bribe from Santhiagu, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, dismissed the criminal case filed against the petitioner, by giving a categorical finding in favour of the petitioner that it was doubtful for the money being received as illegal gratification. Therefore, when the facts and evidence in the criminal proceedings were already dismissed, on the same set of charges and evidences, the departmental proceedings cannot be initiated against him. As the charges are one and the same both in the criminal case and in the departmental proceedings and in view of the fact that the Criminal Court acquitted the petitioner, it would not be desirable for the department to proceed against the petitioner. 4. In his further submission, it was further contended that the order dated 27.01.97 passed by the Special Commission and Commissioner of Revenue Administration was on the basis of Rule 36(i)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The said order passed remanding the matter for fresh enquiry is illegal, as the same was proceeded without issuing any notice and without conferring any opportunity to the petitioner. Secondly, the said order was issued after the expiry of the period of limitation. But, unfortunately, in pursuance of the said order of the Commissioner, the respondent appointed a Special Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Sivagangai, for conducting an enquiry. The said enquiry officer held the enquiry on 01.06.98 and 10.08.98 and examined 6 witnesses, including the person who gave the complaint to the Vigilance Department. But, unfortunately, in pursuance of the said order of the Commissioner, the respondent appointed a Special Tahsildar (Civil Supplies), Sivagangai, for conducting an enquiry. The said enquiry officer held the enquiry on 01.06.98 and 10.08.98 and examined 6 witnesses, including the person who gave the complaint to the Vigilance Department. But, surprisingly, when the complainant deposed before the enquiry officer that he gave a false complaint against the petitioner out of anger, since the petitioner did not oblige him and again, on remand, he clearly deposed that he never gave money to the petitioner. Even without treating the said witness as a hostile witness, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 11.06.98 holding the charges as proved. Therefore, the respondent having not accepted the report of the enquiry officer, once again appointed another enquiry officer to conduct fresh enquiry. But before doing so, the respondent did not pass any order to communicate the same to the petitioner. The Special Tahsildar, Manamadurai, summoned the original complainant Santhiagu and a mahazar witness Ganapathy, through the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and in the presence of the Vigilance Inspector, the witnesses once again deposed that he gave Rs.50/- as illegal gratification. After examining the prosecution witnesses, the enquiry officer closed the enquiry, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to produce any defence witnesses. Thereafter, he submitted a report dated 09.11.2000, holding that the first charge as proved, but did not record any findings on the second charge. The respondent communicated the enquiry report to the petitioner by memo dated 14.11.2000 and called upon the petitioner to submit his further representation before 22.11.2000, asking the petitioner to give his explanations within 7 days itself, which is contrary to the rules, since the time limit of 15 days should be given to the petitioner for submitting his further explanations. As per Rule 17(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, after amendment under G.O.Ms.No.405, P&AR Department, dated 19.09.90, the delinquent employee should be given time limit of 15 days for submitting his representation against the enquiry report. Moreover, the statements of witnesses were also not given along with the copy of the enquiry report. Therefore, the petitioner was fully handicapped to submit his representation. On that basis, it was contended that the petitioner was not granted reasonable opportunities. Moreover, the statements of witnesses were also not given along with the copy of the enquiry report. Therefore, the petitioner was fully handicapped to submit his representation. On that basis, it was contended that the petitioner was not granted reasonable opportunities. Thus, the principles of natural justice were completely violated, while holding the enquiry against the petitioner and on that basis, prayed for setting aside the impugned order of removal from service. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that since the petitioner has committed serious misconduct by receiving illegal gratification, he was dealt with under Rule 17(b). Further, it was submitted that though the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of censure, it was found by the Appellate Authority/Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration that the first enquiry was not properly conducted in accordance with law, as the earlier enquiry was conducted behind the back of investigating officer from the Vigilance and Anti Corruption and on that basis, ordered for second enquiry. Only in the subsequent enquiry by examining all the relevant witnesses, the enquiry officer came to the findings that the petitioner was found guilty and thereupon, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. Therefore, the impugned order of removal from service for the proved misconduct in accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.50/-from Mr.Santhiagu for recommending transfer of patta in the name of Santhiagu in respect of his land in S.No.149/8 in Kundukulam Village, cannot be found fault with. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. The petitioner, M.Rajendran, while serving as a Village Administrative Officer in Uthamanoor Village, Illayangudi Taluk, Sivaganga District, was trapped and arrested on 29.08.89 at 8.30 hrs. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, on the ground that the petitioner demanded and accepted Rs.50/-as bribe from Santhiagu S/o Soosai, Kodimangalam Village, for recommending transfer of patta in the name of Santhiagu in respect of his land in S.No.149/8 of Kundukulam Village. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, on the ground that the petitioner demanded and accepted Rs.50/-as bribe from Santhiagu S/o Soosai, Kodimangalam Village, for recommending transfer of patta in the name of Santhiagu in respect of his land in S.No.149/8 of Kundukulam Village. Thereafter, a criminal case was filed against the petitioner and after laying charge sheet, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, after conducting detailed enquiry, found him not guilty and finally, acquitted the petitioner under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. After ending of criminal case in acquittal by order dated 18.02.93, the respondent department, after two years, initiated departmental proceedings by issuing charge memo dated 10.05.95 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, charging the petitioner of demand and acceptance of Rs.50/-as bribe on the same set of facts and evidence laid before the criminal court. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanations on 18.07.95. On receipt of the explanations offered by the petitioner, the enquiry officer found him not guilty on the charges levelled against him, for the simple reason that the prosecution witness-Santhiagu turned hostile by denying the factum of giving Rs.50/- as bribe to the petitioner. When the prosecution witness turned hostile, the enquiry officer submitted his report holding him not guilty on the charges levelled against the petitioner. Nevertheless, the disciplinary authority imposed a minor penalty of censure by order dated 15.03.96. Though the enquiry officer found him not guilty, even without giving notice to the petitioner, by deferring with the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority erroneously imposed the punishment of censure. However, the said punishment was accepted by the petitioner, as the punishment of censure was minor penalty. Further, after 10 months from the date of punishment of censure dated 15.03.96, the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, by exercising his suo moto power under Rule 36(i)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, even without issuing any notice to the petitioner, ordered for fresh enquiry by setting aside the minor punishment of censure on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted in accordance with rules and regulations. Thereafter, the enquiry officer summoned the same prosecution witness Santhiagu in the presence of the investigating officer form the vigilance department. Once again, the said Santhiagu deposed against the petitioner, afraid of the officer coming from the Vigilance department. Thereafter, the enquiry officer summoned the same prosecution witness Santhiagu in the presence of the investigating officer form the vigilance department. Once again, the said Santhiagu deposed against the petitioner, afraid of the officer coming from the Vigilance department. The enquiry officer, on completion of the enquiry, submitted his report, holding him guilty on the charges levelled against him and thereupon, the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation within 7 days, instead of 15 days, which is contrary to the Rule 17(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. As per amendment made in G.O.Ms.No.405, P&AR Department, dated 19.09.90, the delinquent employee should be given time limit of 15 days for submitting his representation against the enquiry report. But, in the present case, as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the enquiry officer neither granted time to the petitioner to produce his side witnesses to disprove the charge, nor given 15 days time for submitting his further representation. 8. It is useful to extract the Rule 36(i)(ii)(iii)- Suo-motu revision of any orders by the appellate/higher authorities, when no appeal is preferred:- Rule – 36 - “Suo-motu” revision of any orders by the appellate/higher authorities when no appeal is preferred: 36. REVISION – (1) Notwithstanding anythin contained in these rule- (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 department, or (iii) the appellate authority, other than the State Government, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised; or” As per Clause (iii) of 36(1), the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, issued an order dated 27.01.97, by setting aside the order of minor penalty of censure, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, to submit his further explanations as to why the Appellate Authority should not exercise his Suo-motu power under Rule 36(i)(iii). No doubt, the Appellate Authority has got enormous power to exercise suo motu power conferred under Rule 36(i)(iii). No doubt, the Appellate Authority has got enormous power to exercise suo motu power conferred under Rule 36(i)(iii). Further, when the rule enables the Appellate Authority to exercise the suo motu power within six months from the date of the order proposed to be revised, since the said suo motu power has not been exercised within six months, as specified by the Rule, but such suo motu power was exercised exercised after 10 months, that too, without issuing any notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment should not be enhanced, the said exercise of suo motu power conferred is without any jurisdiction, as the same is barred by limitation. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. The present writ petition is therefore allowed. No Costs.