Judgment (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. D. Pangam, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Pankaj Vernekar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the orders passed by respondent nos. 4 and 3 and further seeks writ of mandamus directing respondents to re-instate the petitioner back in service with all back wages and other statutory benefits. 3. In the year 2000, petitioner was working as Police Constable. On 1.8.2001, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under Police Subordinate Service (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1975 ( 'the Rules' for short) alleging that the petitioner had turned hostile in a Criminal Case. The petitioner filed reply. Respondent no. 5 submitted report to the disciplinary authority, i.e respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 4 issued memorandum dated 29.1.2002 stating that he tentatively agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the service. The petitioner showed cause. By order dated 15.3.2002 passed by respondent no. 4, respondent no. 4 imposed penalty of dismissal from services on the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the said order on 30.3.2002, the petitioner filed an appeal to respondent no. 3 who is appellate authority under the Rules. Respondent no. 3 by order dated 12.6.2002 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 5. On 2.7.2002, the petitioner filed review petition before Chief Secretary, State of Goa assailing the orders passed by respondent nos. 4 and 3. By communication dated 20.5.2003, the petitioner was informed that the review petition filed before the Chief Secretary was not maintainable and he had to file review petition before the Director General of Police. Accordingly, on 28.5.2003 the petitioner filed review petition before respondent no.2 who by order dated 30.6.2003 dismissed review petition. 6. Perusal of the Rules discloses that against an order passed by Superintendent of Police who is disciplinary authority, an appeal would lie before Deputy Inspector General of Police in terms of Rule 15(1) of the Rules and schedule annexed to the Rules. In terms of Rule 19(A) power of revision is conferred on the Government or the Chief Secretary or the appellate authority in certain eventuality and the same has to be exercised within a period of six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised. In terms of Rule 19(A) power of revision is conferred on the Government or the Chief Secretary or the appellate authority in certain eventuality and the same has to be exercised within a period of six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised. There is absolutely no provision in the Rules for review by any authority. It is well settled that power of review is not an inherent power available in a Court or in a Tribunal and the same has to be specifically conferred by the statute. In the case of Dist. Collector, Hyderabad Vs. Ibrahim & Co., AIR 1970 SC 1275 , the Apex Court has held that power to review is not an inherent power and it has to be conferred specifically or by necessary implication. From the perusal of the Rules, it is evident that there is no specific power of review and by no stretch of imagination it can be held that such a power is implied on any of the authorities mentioned in the Rules. The necessary sequitur therefore is that the Chief Secretary could not have called upon the petitioner to file a review petition before Director General of Police inasmuch as no such power has been conferred on Director General of Police. However, the Chief Secretary has and had power of revision under Rule 19(A) against an order passed by an appellate authority. 7. In our considered view, interest of justice would be served, if the Chief Secretary, State of Goa is directed to treat review petition dated 2.7.2002 filed by the petitioner as revision application under Rule 19(A) and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 8. Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the review petition, the petitioner has not taken all the grounds as required in law since the same was filed without any legal assistance. Mr. Pangam, therefore seeks leave to urge additional grounds by filing appropriate application before Chief Secretary. 9. Mr. D. Pangam, further submitted that considering that the order of termination was passed in the year 2002, the Chief Secretary be directed to dispose of the Revision application within a reasonable time. 10. Mr. Pankaj Vernekar, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that he has no objection, if the course suggested by Mr. D. Pangam is adopted. 11. 9. Mr. D. Pangam, further submitted that considering that the order of termination was passed in the year 2002, the Chief Secretary be directed to dispose of the Revision application within a reasonable time. 10. Mr. Pankaj Vernekar, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that he has no objection, if the course suggested by Mr. D. Pangam is adopted. 11. We are of the considered view that the submission made by Mr. Pangam deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, communication dated 20.5.2003 addressed by Joint Secretary(Home) to the Petitioner and order dated 30.6.2003 passed by respondent no. 2 are quashed and set aside. The Chief Secretary, State of Goa, is directed to treat the review petition dated 2.7.2002 filed by the petitioner as revision application under Rule 19(A) of the Rules. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to urge grounds in support of revision by filing appropriate application within a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, Chief Secretary shall dispose of the revision application, after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case on or before 30.11.2012. 12. The parties to appear before the Chief Secretary, State of Goa on 4.10.2012 at 3.00 p.m. 13. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.