Judgment :- 1. By exercise of suo-motu power under Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955, the Director General of Police, the first respondent herein, has upheld the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioners. The said orders dated dated 07.10.2004 and 09.12.2004, are under challenge in these writ petitions. 2. According to the petitioners, while working as Police Constables, they were issued with charge memorandum under Rule 3-b of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955, by the Director General of Police, Chennai–4, dated 13.12.2002, based on a criminal case registered against the petitioners in Crime No.295/2002, dated 27.09.2002, for the ofences under Sections 341, 353, 294-B and 506(i) I.P.C., on the file of the K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy. Thereafter, the action against the petitioners for prosecution, was dropped by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Trichy. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, attached to City Armed Reserve, Trichy, was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the charges, though, there was no substantive evidence against the petitioners. P.Ws.2 and 7 examined on behalf of the prosecution and deposed that they have not seen the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 27.09.2002 and when no prosecution witness has established the charge levelled against the petitioners, the Enquiry Officer has erroneously held that the charges as proved. On receipt of the enquiry Officers Report dated 22.09.2003, the petitioners submitted detailed written explanations to the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Trichy City, Trichy, the respondents 3 and 4, in these writ petitions. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Trichy City, Trichy, the 4th respondent herein, without due application of mind to the facts of the case, evidence let in during the departmental enquiry, by order dated 04.12.2007, dismissed the petitioners from service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred appeals on 13.12.2007, before the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy, the 3rd respondent herein, and the said appeals were rejected. 5. Being aggrieved by the above said orders, the petitioners preferred revision petitions before the Additional Director General of Police, (Law and Order), Chennai, to set aside the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred appeals on 13.12.2007, before the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy, the 3rd respondent herein, and the said appeals were rejected. 5. Being aggrieved by the above said orders, the petitioners preferred revision petitions before the Additional Director General of Police, (Law and Order), Chennai, to set aside the same. The revisional authority, passed orders dated 12.06.2004, modifying the punishment of dismissal from service into that of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for one year. In view of the modification of the punishment, the petitioners were taken back to the duty by the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy, vide order dated 17.07.2004. 6. While that be so, the Director General of Police, Chennai, the first respondent herein, issued show-cause notices, dated 12.08.2004, to the petitioners, calling upon to offer their explanations, as to why the quantum of punishment modified by the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, should not be enhanced. In response to the same, the petitioners submitted their explanations on 03.09.2004, requesting him to drop further action in the above matter. However, not satisfied with the explanation, the first respondent, confirmed the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioners, by the disciplinary authority. The said orders are challenged in these writ petitions. 7. At the foremost, referring to Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955, and the orders of the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) Chennai, dated 12.06.2004, Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy, dated 20.02.2004, the appellate authority, the petitioners have already filed review petitions on 25.02.2004 and after considering the same on merits and the connected records, the Additional Director General of Police, (Law and Order), Chennai, found that there were contradictions in the evidence regarding intoxication of the petitioners and taking into consideration of the remaining period of service for the petitioners observed that ends of justice could be met, if the petitioners are given a chance. Accordingly, he modified the punishment into that of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for one year and the period of reduction shall not operate to postpone the future increments. 8. Accordingly, he modified the punishment into that of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages for one year and the period of reduction shall not operate to postpone the future increments. 8. He further submitted that the Additional Director General of Police (law and Order), Chennai, the second respondent herein, is not subordinate authority to the first respondent and therefore, the first respondent has no jurisdiction, to exercise the powers under Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955, to issue show-cause notices and consequently reverse the orders passed on the review petitions passed by the Additional Director General of Police. According to him, once the power of review had already been exercised by the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, at the instance of the writ petitioners, suo-motu exercise of the review power by the first respondent on the very same matter, is not permissible in law. According to him, the power conferred on the revisional authority can be exercised only once and in the instant case, when the same had already been exercised by a competent authority under the statutory rules, at the instance of the writ petitioners, a second review by another authority viz., the first respondent, is without jurisdiction, and it is nothing but an arbitrary exercise. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the power of review under Section 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955, can be exercised by the Head of the Department only in a case where the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Shambhu Ram Yadav Vs. Hanuman Das Khatry reported in ( 2001 (6) SCC 1 ). 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there cannot two different views on the same set of facts by two different authorities conferred with the same powers of review. 11. On the merits of the case, leaned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Director General of Police, (Law and Order), Chennai, the first respondent herein, ought to have sent the petitioners, to a Medical Officer for examination to find out as to whether they had consumed alcohol or not. 11. On the merits of the case, leaned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Director General of Police, (Law and Order), Chennai, the first respondent herein, ought to have sent the petitioners, to a Medical Officer for examination to find out as to whether they had consumed alcohol or not. In the absence of any medical examination, according to him, the charge of consumption is not established by the Department. 12. Taking this Court through the minutes, leaned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that none of the witnesses have established the charge levelled against the petitioners and therefore, the first respondent has erred in mechanically confirming the order of punishment imposed on the petitioners by the disciplinary authority. 13. According to him, when P.Ws 2 and 7, stated to be the eye-witnesses, have categorically deposed that they have not seen the occurrence alleged to have been taken place on 27.09.2002 and when the other prosecution witnesses, have not let in any substantive evidence, to prove the charges, the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer on mere surmises, is perverse and in such circumstances, the disciplinary authority, who is enjoined with a duty to consider as to whether the facts on which the orders have been passed, has failed to consider the same and exercise the jurisdiction conferred on him in proper perspective. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the first respondent has failed to consider the past services of the petitioners before upholding the orders of dismissal while exercising the suo-motu power under Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955, 15. Based on the counter affidavit filed by the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that when the petitioners were working as Police Constable in Armed Reserve, Trichy City, on 27.09.2002 at 21.30 hrs, they returned from casual leave and reported before Tr.R.Jeganathan, duty Sub-Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve, Trichy City, without any uniform. When the duty Sub-Inspector of Police, questioned the manner of their behavior, the petitioners used filthy and abusive languages and threatened the Sub-Inspector of Police and restrained him to perform his official duty along with another Police Constable I.Paul Jones. When the duty Sub-Inspector of Police, questioned the manner of their behavior, the petitioners used filthy and abusive languages and threatened the Sub-Inspector of Police and restrained him to perform his official duty along with another Police Constable I.Paul Jones. Hence, a case in Cr.No.295/2002, was registered against the petitioners, in K.K.Nagar Police Station, for the offences under Sections 341, 352, 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C. After registering a criminal case, the Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar, Trichy City, has visited the place at 21.45 hours on that date and found that the petitioners had already left away from the place. In this regard, the petitioners were placed under suspension on 29.09.2007. Subsequently, further action in the criminal case was dropped and the department decided to proceed against the petitioners under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that disciplinary action was taken and a charge memo, dated 31.01.2001, in PR/H1/05/03 u/r 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955 was framed against the petitioners. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Trichy City, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. According to the learned counsel for the State, the charge of misbehavior with a superior officer, at the working place in front of other colleagues has been proved in the departmental enquiry. Only after considering the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has drawn up the minute, holding the charge as proved. He further submitted that as the Enquiry Officer has formed his opinion on the basis of acceptable evidence, adduced during the regular departmental enquiry, and when the disciplinary authority, after going through the entire records and the defence put up by charged officials, has imposed the penalty of dismissal, it is not open to the petitioners to seek for re-appreciation of the evidence in writ proceedings. 17. 17. According to the learned counsel, when the Director General of Police (Law and Order) Chennai, the reviewing authority under the statutory rules, after going through the punishment orders and other records found that the petitioners have conducted themselves in a highly reprehensible conduct, ie., attending the duty on 27.09.2002, without wearing uniform and used abusive and vulgar words against a superior officer by pulling his uniform and pushing him down on the basis of the evidence adduced during the oral enquiry and when the Director General of Police has further observed that the action of the charged policemen that even though they were sober their conduct was indisciplined, the punishment of dismissal from service, is commensurate with the gravity of the charges. 18. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that when the prosecution witness No.9, Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar, Trichy District, in Ex.No.12, has clearly stated that both the petitioners, ran away from the place of occurrence, the contention that they were not examined by a Medical Officer, to prove the state of drunkenness, cannot be countenanced. He further submitted that if the petitioners were not drunk and conducted themselves in such a highly indisciplined manner, there is no reason as to why, they should run away from the place of occurrence. He also submitted that P.W.1, Mr.Jeganathan, the then Special Sub-Inspector on duty during the enquiry has clearly stated that both the petitioners had abused and pushed him down. Even during the cross examination, he had confirmed the same. It is also his further evidence that immediately after the incident he had informed to the Control room through V.H.F. and phoned up K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy City, about the incident. 19. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that when the prosecution witnesses have not disowned and denied their version as per the statements, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, on the basis of the statements, particularly, P.Ws. 1, 2, 8, and 9 cannot be said to be perverse or without any evidence. 20. According to him, when procedural violation causing prejudice to the petitioners has not been pleaded and proved before the fact finding authorities, it is not open to the petitioners, to canvass the same, before this Court, seeking for reversal of finding. 1, 2, 8, and 9 cannot be said to be perverse or without any evidence. 20. According to him, when procedural violation causing prejudice to the petitioners has not been pleaded and proved before the fact finding authorities, it is not open to the petitioners, to canvass the same, before this Court, seeking for reversal of finding. In this context, he submitted that Courts have consistently held that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible and therefore, prayed that the court need not to delve into the said aspect. 21. Finally, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners attended duty in plain dress during duty hours and when the same was questioned by the Spl.Sub-Inspector on duty, both the petitioners pulled the uniform of the officer on duty and pushed him down and it is a highly indisciplined conduct, for which appropriate penalty of dismissal has been imposed and the same does not require any interference. For the above said reasons, he prayed to sustain the impugned orders. 22. Heard leaned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 23. There is no dispute that initially, against both the writ petitioners, a case in Crime No.295/02, for offences under Sections 341, 352, 294(b) and 506(i) I.P.C., on the file of K.K.Nagar Police Station was registered and later on, both the petitioners were placed under suspension for having used filthy language and threatened the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Armed Reserve, Trichy City, Trichy District, on 27.09.2002 at 21.30 hrs. in front of other colleagues and restrained him from performing his official duty. The charge against the petitioners is as follows:-"TAMIL" 24. For the highly reprehensible conduct and highhanded action for having challenged the duty SSI, using vulgar words, pulling the uniform of the officer and pushing him down in drunken mood, on 27.09.2002, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Armed Reserve, Trichy City, Trichy District, the Enquiry Officer, in his report dated 24.09.2003, found that both the petitioners were guilty of the charges. While agreeing with the enquiry Officers report, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Trichy District, has recorded as follows:-“I fully agree with the Oral Enquiry Officer who has held the charge as "Proved" from the oral evidence adduced by P.Ws.1, 2, 8 and 9 and supported by the prosecution exhibits, it is very clear and convincing that the delinquent who turned up for duty on 27.09.2002 without wearing uniform willfully violating the provisions, used very abusive and vulgar words against his own officer as " Vz;lh g[z;il kfBd, Bjt[oah kfBd"“ and pulling the uniform of the Officer and pushed him down and deliberately challenging the SSI of consequences if marked him "absent". Inasmuch as the delinquent has not explanation to offer despite instructions, it is conspicuous that they admitted their guilty." 25. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) Trichy District, the disciplinary Authority, has further recorded that “reprehensible and highhanded action committed by the delinquents, the writ petitioners in disciplined force cannot be allowed to drift. From the oral evidence supported by documents, it is very clear that the delinquents dared to threaten their own officer and when questioned about their propriety of reporting for duty in plain clothes, they have held the officers uniform and pushed him down, at the duty place, which clearly exhibited highly indisciplinary and highhanded action, throwing over board all corporate behavior in the disciplinary force, and that the same cannot be brushed aside. The disciplinary authority has further recorded that they need not be given any reprieve or sympathy and allow such elements in Police force would tantamount to encouraging indiscipline and it would erode very badly the cause of discipline among the rank and file. Any leniency shown to them would result in other colleagues to follow the suit. 26. Thus while agreeing with the enquiry officers report, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Trichy District, the Disciplinary Authority, has recorded his views on the gravity of the charges and the conduct of the policemen, after recording that the writ petitioners had not given their explanation despite instructions, and has come to the conclusion that retention of the writ petitioners in the disciplined police force, would affect the morale of other policemen in the force and therefore, it would be appropriate to dismiss the petitioners from service. 27. 27. The appellate authority viz., the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy, after going through the appeal petitions and connected records, has passed orders on the appeals, by observing that the prosecution witnesses have clearly and adequately deposed against the petitioners and that the conduct of the writ petitioners, is a very serious matter and such belligerent activity could not be tolerated. So saying, the appellate authority has confirmed the order of punishment. Thereafter, both the petitioners have filed revision petitions, dated 26.02.2004, to the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order) Chennai, and the said revisional authority, noticed certain contradictions in the oral evidence particularly in the oral testimony of the Inspector of Police, P.W.9, has deposed that the petitioners were not in intoxicated condition and considering the above said aspect and the number of years of service rendered by the writ petitioners, deemed it fit that the punishment was excessive and accordingly, modified the punishment of dismissal from service into that of reduction in time scale-of-pay by two stages for one year and further directed that the period of reduction shall not operate to postpone future increments. 28. Pursuant to the orders made in the review petitions, the petitioners have been taken back to duty. Thereafter, the Director General of Police, Chennai, the Head of the Department in exercise of suo-motu power of review, conferred on him under the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955, has issued show-cause notices, dated 12.08.2004, to the petitioners, calling upon them to offer their explanations as to why the modified punishment of reduction in time scale-of-pay by two stages for one year without cumulative effect imposed on them by the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, should not be enhanced to that of dismissal. Though the petitioners have offered their respective explanations, after considering the records relating to the disciplinary proceedings including their defence, the Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, the Head of the Department, has rejected the same as false. The Head of the Department has recorded as follows: "Though drunkenness has not been proved, the highhandedness of the delinquents is proved and that both the petitioners did not submit any written explanation though reasonable opportunities were given. The Head of the Department has recorded as follows: "Though drunkenness has not been proved, the highhandedness of the delinquents is proved and that both the petitioners did not submit any written explanation though reasonable opportunities were given. The disciplinary authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Trichy District, has rightly awarded the extreme punishment of dismissal from service, so that such elements are removed from the force or otherwise they would have a negative influence on other members of the force. The appellate authority also did not interfere with the punishment given by the disciplinary authority. But the reviewing authority, the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, based on his decision only on the point that the petitioners were not proved to have been in an intoxicated condition. I feel that this strengthens the case against the delinquents as it demonstrated that even when sober they were capable of such indisciplined conduct. Further, the delinquents did not submit any written explanation to the Oral Enquiry Officer though time was given. In view of the circumstances, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioners, by the disciplinary authority viz., the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) Trichy City, Trichy, is upheld". 29. In these above factual background and arguments advanced on either side, it is necessary to examine the preliminary issue as to whether the Head of the Department, viz., the Director General of Police, Chennai, has jurisdiction to exercise suo-motu power of review conferred on him under Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955. Whether he can review the decision of the Additional Director General of Police, (Law and Order), Chennai, the second respondent in these writ petitions, who had already exercised the power of review under Section 15-A of the rules, at the instance of the writ petitioners. Yet another aspect to be considered is whether statutory rules empower, a second review by the Head of the Department of the orders of an authority, who is not subordinate to him. Suo-motu power of review is exercised by the appellate/head of the department/ Government and other Authorities under special or general orders. Yet another aspect to be considered is whether statutory rules empower, a second review by the Head of the Department of the orders of an authority, who is not subordinate to him. Suo-motu power of review is exercised by the appellate/head of the department/ Government and other Authorities under special or general orders. Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955, is extracted hereunder:-"15-A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules: (i) the State (ii) the Head of the Department directly under the State Government, in the case of Government servant serving in a department or office under the control of such Head of Department; or (iii) the appellate authority, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be reviewed; or .(iv) any other authority specified in this behalf by the State Government by 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 review any order made under these rules, after consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission where such consultation is necessary 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; 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 it may deem fit. Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any reviewing authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed. Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any reviewing authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty proposed. Where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (d), (e), (f), (h), (i) and (j of rule 2 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be reviewed to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, no such penalty shall be imposed except after an inquiry in the manner laid down in such rule (b) of rule (3) and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the Government servant concerned of showing cause against the penalty proposed on the evidence adduced during the inquiry and except after consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, where such consultation is necessary. Provided further that no power or review shall be exercised by the Head of Department, unless: (i) the authority which made the order in appeal or .(ii) the authority to which an appeal would lie where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to him. (2) No proceeding for review shall be commenced until after, (i) the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal, or (ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred. .(3) An application for review shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under these rules. (4) No application for review shall be preferred more than once in respect of the same order. Provided that members of the constabulary (Police Constables and Head Constables) shall be eligible to make on representation to the Government against the orders of dismissal or removal from service after exhausting the right of appeal. Provided further that no application for review shall be entertained if it has not been made within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order on which such application for review is preferred." 30. In P.Sabesan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1984 W.L.R. 557), a Police Officer was exonerated of the charges on 19.05.1977, by the D.I.G (Food Cell), the appointing authority therein. Thereafter, a show cause notice, dated 25.09.1977 was issued under Rule 15(A) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by the Inspector General of Police, Madras. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1984 W.L.R. 557), a Police Officer was exonerated of the charges on 19.05.1977, by the D.I.G (Food Cell), the appointing authority therein. Thereafter, a show cause notice, dated 25.09.1977 was issued under Rule 15(A) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, by the Inspector General of Police, Madras. Writ of Prohibition filed for restraining the I.G. of Police, Madras from passing any order under Rule 15(A), was dismissed. 31. On appeal, it was contended by the appellant, Police Officer that the power of review under Rule 15A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, can be exercised by four authorities: viz., (1) The State Government; (2) the Head of the Departments; (3) the Appellate authority, and (4) any Other authority specified in this behalf by the State Government, by a general or special order. But, the power of review given to the Head of the Department is however, subject to the restriction placed under proviso to the rule. It was further contended that as per the proviso to the rule, no power of review shall be exercised by the Head of the Department, unless the appellate authority, which passed the appellate order or the authority to which an appeal would be preferred against the original order is subordinate to him. At the relevant point of time, the Inspector General of Police was the Head of the Department and he also happened to be the appellate authority. It was contended before the Division Bench that as the appellate authority was not subordinate to the Head of the Department and the former cannot exercise the power of review in view of the prohibition under the proviso to the rule. On careful consideration of the rule position, on the facts of the above case, the Division Bench held that exercise of suo motu review power as bad. The operative portion of the order is extracted in the latter part of this judgment. 32. For better regulation of the police force within the State of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1869, Central Act No.XXIV of 1859 has been enacted. The operative portion of the order is extracted in the latter part of this judgment. 32. For better regulation of the police force within the State of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1869, Central Act No.XXIV of 1859 has been enacted. As per Section 5 of the said Act, the Administration of the Police throughout the General Police District shall be vested in an officer to be styled the Director General of Police for the State of Tamil Nadu, and in such superior Police Officers, as to the State Government shall deem it. 33. Admittedly, the first respondent is the Head of the Department. In the case on hand, the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, the second respondent herein, in exercise of the powers under Section 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rule, 1955, had already exercised the power of review, at the instance of the petitioners, and modified the penalty of dismissal from service into that of reduction in time scale-of-pay by two stages for one year. As per proviso to Rule 15-A of the said rules, no power of review shall be exercised by the Head of the Department in which (i) the authority which made the order in appeal or (ii) the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to him and (2) No proceedings for review shall be commenced until after (i) the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal, or (ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred. 34. As per the Discipline and Appeal Rules, an application for review has to be dealt with in the same manner as if it is an appeal under the said rules. Clause 4 of Rule 15-A states that no application for review shall be preferred more than once in respect of the same order. The condition precedent for exercise of suo-motu power of review by the Head of the Department under Rule 15-A of the rules is that when an order of punishment is imposed by the disciplinary authority, the Head of the Department can exercise such powers after expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal or after the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred. 35. 35. In the case on hand, the punishment of dismissal was imposed on 04.12.2002, by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order), Trichy City, Trichy, the 4th respondent herein. The rejection of appeal by the Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Tricy, the 3rd respondent was made on 20.02.2004. The review petitions were filed on 25.02.2004 and the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai, the Second respondent, has passed orders on 12.06.2004.Under Rule 15-A of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal Rule, 1955. The Head of the Department directly under the State Government, in the case of Government Servant serving in a department or office under the Control of such Head of Department may at any time either on their or its own motion or otherwise call for records of any inquiry and review any order made under these rules, after consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, where such consultation is necessary 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 imposed 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 orders as it may deem fit. 36. As per proviso to the said rule, no application for review shall be entertained if it has not been made within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order on which such application for review is preferred. The proviso also enables the members of the constabulary (Police constables and Head Constables) to make one representation to the Government against the orders of dismissal or removal from service after exhausting the right of appeal. 37. Thus it is evident that a member of the constabulary can prefer a review to the competent authority within six months from the date of receipt of the punishment order and he is also eligible to make a representation to the Government against the orders of dismissal or removal from service after exhausting the right of appeal. 37. Thus it is evident that a member of the constabulary can prefer a review to the competent authority within six months from the date of receipt of the punishment order and he is also eligible to make a representation to the Government against the orders of dismissal or removal from service after exhausting the right of appeal. Suo-motu power of review can be exercised by the Head of the Department only if the appellate authority, which had passed the appellate order or after the appeal that would be preferred against the original order, is subordinate to him. 38. In P.Sabesan case, reported in (1984 W.L.R. 557) (cited supra) the Division Bench, after considering the rule position, held as follows: “the proviso is specific and it says that if the authority to which an appeal would lie is not subordinate to the Head of the Department, then the latter cannot exercise the power of review. Admittedly, any order passed by the DIG (Food Cell), is appealable to the second respondent, who happens to be the Head of the Department. Thus, the appellate authority is not subordinate to the Head of the Department. Both the powers, that is, the power of the Head of the Department and the appellate authority having vested in the same person. In such a case the proviso prohibits the Head of the Department from exercising the power of sum-motu review. Thus, proviso to Rule 15-A stands in the way of the second respondent exercising his suo motu review power under that Rule as he happens to be the appellate authority, in the case in which he proposes to exercise the power of suo-motu review. Thus, the show-cause notice issued by the second respondent proposing to exercise the power of review under R.15-A of the Rules should be taken to be without jurisdiction". 39. When the rule contemplates exercise of suomotu power of review, by the Head of the Department of an order or any records of any enquiry may under the rules by an authority not subordinate to him, in the case of appeal already preferred or the authority to which an appeal would lie where no appeal has been preferred, then this Court is of the view that rule 15-A does not empower the Head of the Department to exercise the power of suo-motu review of an order passed by an authority of equal rank. 40. The condition precedent to exercise the suo-motu power of review is that the order sought to be reviewed by the Head of the Department should be passed by an authority, who passed the order in appeal or the authority to which an appeal would lie where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to him and in these specific cases, the power can be exercised by the Head of the Department and not in the case, where an order is passed by an authority, who is conferred with equal powers. It is also to be noted that the Government have not any materials to show that the Additional Director General of Police of the State, is subordinate to the Director General of Police. 41. Yet another aspect to be noted is that Sub Rule 4 of rule 15-A states that no application or review shall be preferred more than once in respect of the same order. Rule restricts the right of the members of the force to seek for review more than once. However, the members of the Constabulary (Police constables and Head Constables) are eligible to make one representation to Government against the order of removal or dismissal of service, as a matter of right. As per Rule 15-B of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal Rule, 1955, nothing contained in the above rules shall be deemed to preclude the State Government from reviewing its own orders previously passed. 42. It is well settled that the period of limitation of six months for reviewing any order is not applicable to State Government. Notwithstanding anything contained in the above rule, only the prerogative right of the State Government to review any order or call for any records at any time including the earlier orders passed by the Government is retained, and whereas, such authority or power is not given to any other authority, including the Head of the Department to review an order passed by an authority who is equal in rank and vested with the power of review. 43. 43. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that different views on the same set of facts, by two different authorities, exercising equal powers of review cannot be made either at the instance of the aggrieved person or on the own motion of the authority is fortified by the specific restrictions imposed in the sub rule 4 of the rule 15A, that no application for review shall be preferred more than once in respect of the same order. It is also useful to refer Rule 5 of the Service rules which states that a member of the service shall be entitled to appeal from an order imposing on him any of the penalties specified in Rule 2 other than the State Government, to the authority higher than that specified in the relevant column of the schedule, to the next higher authority to whom the the former authority is administratively subordinate. 44. As per Rule 10 of the said rules an appeal may be withheld by an authority not lower than the authority from whose order it is preferred, if it is a repetition of the previous appeal and is made to the same appellate authority by which such appeal has been decided, and no new facts or circumstances are adduced which afford grounds for a reconsideration of the case. Thus, in respect of the same order, the rule restricts the right of a member of the service in filing a second appeal or review of an order more than once, while that be so, when there is no specific power conferred on the Head of the Department to review its own orders while discharging the powers as an appellate authority, he cannot assure powers acting as a reviewing authority, that he can suo motu exercise the powers of review of an order passed by a reviewing authority, in the instant case, the Additional Director General of Police. The said power is conferred only on the State Government. In view of the rule position, dealing with appellate power, it has to be necessarily inferred that the Head of the Department is also not empowered to exercise the power of the review more than once, in respect of any order or records of any enquiry, reviewed earlier, at the instance of the members of the force. 45. In view of the rule position, dealing with appellate power, it has to be necessarily inferred that the Head of the Department is also not empowered to exercise the power of the review more than once, in respect of any order or records of any enquiry, reviewed earlier, at the instance of the members of the force. 45. As stated supra, the powers conferred on the State Government are wide, exclusive and it could be exercised at any time and the Government can review its orders in contradiction to the one conferred on the Head of the Department, which is limited and circumscribed subject to the restrictions in Rule 15-A of the service rules. When disciplinary proceedings have reached a stage, by exercise of powers by all the statutory authorities, it becomes final. 46. In view of the above discussions, this court is of the considered view that exercise of suo-motu review of power by the first respondent in enhancing the punishment from reduction in time scale-of-pay by two stages for one year into that of dismissal, is without jurisdiction. The Discipline and Appeal Rules do not contemplate two reviews at the instance of a member of service or even by the reviewing authority, except by the Government. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 47. As this Court has come to the conclusion that the impugned order is without any jurisdiction, it deems it fit not to delve into other contentions, on the merits. In view of the above, both the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.