Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.No.35736/2005, which was filed to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 08.08.2002 passed by the first respondent therein / appellant herein and to quash the same. 2. The first respondent joined as Village Administrative Officer in the year 1986. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted as Junior Assistant in the second respondent Municipality on 26.09.1990. The posts of Junior Assistant and Cashier are one and the same and they are inter-transferable. While he was working as Cashier in the second respondent Municipality, a charge memo dated 12.05.2000 was issued to him alleging certain irregularities. Based on the said charge memo, a show cause notice dated 13.09.2000 was issued to him asking him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service for the alleged irregularities. He submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice. After considering his explanation, the second respondent, by order dated 30.03.2001, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect and also treated the period of suspension as punishment. The first respondent accepted the said punishment and it became final. When that being so, the appellant herein issued another show cause notice dated 08.08.2002 asking him to submit his explanation within 15 days from that date as to why the said punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect should not be converted into one of removal from service as per Rules 20 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1970. He submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice on 29.08.2002. Again, during the second week of October 2005, he was asked to submit his explanation to the said show cause notice dated 08.08.2002. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.35736/2005 seeking the relief referred to above. A learned Single Judge of this court, allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the entire materials available on record. 4. Therefore, he filed W.P.No.35736/2005 seeking the relief referred to above. A learned Single Judge of this court, allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present writ appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the entire materials available on record. 4. The main grounds raised in the writ appeal are that, charges were framed against the first respondent for misappropriation of Municipality fund to the tune of Rs.2.08 lakhs; only after conducting enquiry, he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect vide proceedings dated 30.03.2001 of the second respondent; the first respondent did not file any appeal as against the said order; the same had become final; the Appellate Authority, exercising suo motu powers under Rules 20 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (D & A) Rules, 1970, issued the show cause notice dated 08.08.2002; the said Rule does not prescribe any time limit for exercising suo motu powers by the appellant; Rule 36(3) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules ‘is not applicable to the first respondent as he is a Municipal servant; though the first respondent had remitted the misappropriated amount, that by itself would not confer any right on him to challenge the impugned order and since the learned Single Judge had failed to take into account the above facts, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. 5. According to the first respondent, pursuant to the charge memo dated 12.05.2000 and show cause notice dated 13.09.2000, he submitted his explanation; the second respondent, only after considering the same, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect by order dated 30.03.2001; the said punishment had become final and when that being so, converting the above punishment by the appellant, by order dated 08.08.2002 into one of removal from service, by exercising suo motu powers under Rules 20 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1970, is illegal and it is contrary to Rule 36(3) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules. It is also his case that, only after considering the explanation submitted by him to the first show cause notice, the said punishment of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect was imposed on him on 30.03.2001, which had become final and therefore, issuing the second show cause notice on 08.08.2002 i.e., after a period of more than one year, to review the punishment already imposed, is totally unjustified, especially when Rules 20 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules do not provide for any specific time limit to review the punishment already imposed. 6. The issue involved in this writ appeal is, whether the order dated 08.08.2002 passed by the appellant, by exercising suo motu powers under Rules 20 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules more than one year after the imposition of punishment which had become final as early as on 30.03.2001, can be legally sustained or not? 7. To decide the above issue, it is relevant to extract Rules 20 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (D & A) Rules deals with the powers of the Appellate Authority or Government when no appeal is preferred. The said Rule reads as follows: "The authority by whom an order imposing a penalty specified in rule 3 may be reversed or altered in cases in which no appeal is preferred shall be the appellate authority prescribed in the rules or the State Government." Rule 25 of the said Rules deals with the power of the Government to pass orders on completed disciplinary proceedings and it reads thus: "Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the State Government shall have the power to call for the records relating to a disciplinary proceedings which has been completed either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority and pass such orders on it as they may consider just or expedient. Provided that before a penalty is imposed in a case where it has not been imposed or a penalty which has been imposed is enhanced, the persons concerned should be given an opportunity to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed or enhanced, as the case may be." 8. Provided that before a penalty is imposed in a case where it has not been imposed or a penalty which has been imposed is enhanced, the persons concerned should be given an opportunity to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed or enhanced, as the case may be." 8. From a perusal of Rule 20 of the said Rules, it is clear that though the said Rule enables the Appellate Authority or the Government to reverse or alter an order imposing a penalty specified in Rule 3 when no appeal is preferred as against the said order, yet, the said Rule does not stipulate any time limit for reviewing the punishment imposed earlier. As per Rule 25 of the said Rules, only the Government is given the power to pass orders on completed disciplinary proceedings and even the said Rule does not provide for any specific time limit. 9. In this case, admittedly, the first respondent had not preferred any appeal against the order of punishment viz., stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect and therefore, the said order had become final as early as on 30.03.2001. However, after a period of more than one year, the appellant herein, who is the Appellate Authority, had issued the show cause notice dated 08.08.2002 to the first respondent to show cause as to why the punishment imposed on him earlier should not be converted into one of dismissal from service, by exercising suo motu powers under Rules 20 and 25 of the said Rules, especially, when the said Rules do not provide for any specific time limit to review the punishment imposed earlier. Not only that, as per Rule 25 of the said Rules, only the Government is empowered to pass orders on completed disciplinary proceedings. When this being the position, we do not understand as to under what authority of law, the appellant had issued the show cause notice dated 08.08.2002 to the first respondent to convert the punishment imposed on him as early as on 30.03.2001, which had become final. 10. It is the case of the first respondent that the proceedings now initiated is beyond the period of limitation provided for under Rule 36(3) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. 10. It is the case of the first respondent that the proceedings now initiated is beyond the period of limitation provided for under Rule 36(3) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Though as per Rule 36(3) of the said Rules a time limit of six months is prescribed for the Appellate Authority, other than the State Government, to review the earlier order passed, yet, we are unable to agree with the said contention raised by the first respondent since, admittedly, he is governed only by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The learned Single Judge, by wrongly relying upon the provisions contained in Rule 36(3) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, had disposed of the writ petition. Even assuming that Rules 20 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (D & A) Rules do not provide for any specific time limit for the authorities to review the earlier order passed against the delinquent, yet, the order passed in this case by the appellant, who is the Appellate Authority, is more than one year from the date of imposing the order of punishment. At this juncture the question that is required to be decided is, even though no time limit is stipulated in Rule 20, does it mean that such a suo motu power can be exercised by the authority concerned at his whims and fancies? This question is no more res integra since, by now, it is trite law that "where no time limit is prescribed to exercise such suo motu powers, the same shall be exercised within a reasonable time and what is "reasonable time" would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, vide MohamadKavi Mohamad Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71 . In G.Karmegam & Others Vs. Joint Sub-Registrar, Madurai & Others (2008) 1 MLJ 789 (FB), a Full Bench of this court has held that "any power conferred upon any Statutory Authority shall be exercised to advance the cause of justice and not to upset the settled rights of the parties concerned." By passing the said order, the Appellate Authority is trying to unsettle the issue which had already been settled as early as on 30.03.2001, thereby causing great prejudice to the interest of the first respondent. Therefore, the order dated 08.08.2002 passed by the appellant cannot be legally sustained. 11. Rule 18 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (D & A) Rules deals with withholding of appeal by an authority not lower than the authority from whose order it is preferred, if the same has not been preferred within a period of two months after the date on which the appellant was informed of the order appealed against and no reasonable cause is shown for the delay, etc., etc., Even as per Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (D & A) Rules, where the original order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 3 has been imposed on a member of a service by the State Government, such member may, within two months from the date on which the order is communicated to him, submit a revision petition to the Government against the order and in disposing of the petition, the State Government shall, as far as possible, follow the procedure prescribed for dealing with appeals. When the said Rule stipulates a time limit of two months to the delinquent to file a revision against the order imposing penalty, we are unable to understand as to why the Rule Framing Authority had failed to prescribe any time limit to the Appellate Authority to review the order of punishment imposed on the delinquent. In this case, as already stated, the first respondent had not filed any appeal against the order imposing the penalty of stoppage of increment for five years with cumulative effect and therefore, the said order had become final. But however, the appellant, who is the Appellate Authority, exercising suo motu powers under Rules 20 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (D & A) Rules, had issued the second show cause notice on 08.08.2002 after a period of more than one year, especially when the Rules do not contemplate any specific time limit for reviewing the earlier order of punishment imposed on the delinquent. Therefore, going by Rules 18 and 24 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (D & A) Rules, we hold that the show cause notice dated 08.08.2002 issued by the appellant after a period of more than one year from the date of imposing the punishment, which had become final, appears to be unjust, which had resulted in causing considerable hardship to the first respondent. 12. 12. Looking from any angle, the impugned show cause notice dated 08.08.2002 issued by the appellant, exercising suo motu powers under Rules 20 and 25 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Services (D & A) Rules, with an unexplained delay, that too, after the rights of the first respondent / employee got settled, cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, we find no ground to entertain the present writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.