Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, to quash the show cause notice dated 27.2.2002 issued by the respondent in exercise of suo motu power under Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. 2. Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 reads as under: "36. Revision. 2. Rule 36 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 reads as under: "36. Revision. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules- (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 Departments; or (iii) the Appellate Authority, other than the State Government, within six months of the date of the order proposes to be revised; or (iv) Any other Authority specified in this behalf by the State Government by a 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 after consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, where such consultation is necessary and revise any order made under these rules, 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 they or it may deem fit: Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revising Authority, unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making his representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv), (v), (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Rule 8 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be revised to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, and if an inquiry under sub-rule (b) of Rule 17 has not already been held in the case no such penalty shall be imposed except after an enquiry in the manner laid down in the said sub-rule (b) of Rule 17 which shall be subject to the provisions of sub-rule (c) thereof, and except after consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, where such consultation is necessary: Provided further that no power of revision shall be exercised by the Head of the 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 revision shall be commenced - (a) Where no appeal has been preferred, before the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal, or (b) where an appeal has been preferred, before the disposal of such appeal. (c) an application for revision shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under these rules." 3. It is not in dispute that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.1 of 1994 dated 20.09.1994 by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dharmapuri District for having demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) for issuing certificate for obtaining E.B connection in the name of complainant's father. 4. The matter was also referred to Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, the enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges. 5. The competent authority agreed that the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed major punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. 6. The petitioner, being satisfied with the imposition of penalty, did not challenge the order. The order was passed on 21.8.2001. The State Government in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 36, re-produced above, issued a show cause notice dated 27.2.2002 to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed keeping in view the seriousness of the misconduct proved against the petitioner. 7. The impugned notice is challenged only on the ground of jurisdiction for having been issued after the period of limitation. 8. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is, that the limitation prescribed under Rule 36, to take suo motu action is six months, which expired on 20.2.2002, and therefore it was not within the jurisdiction of State Government to exercise power under Rule 36 of the Rules, after 20.2.2002, whereas the show cause notice has been issued on 27.2.2002, which is barred by limitation. It is not disputed that the show cause notice has been issued after the period of limitation. 9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned show cause notice is set aside. It is made clear, that this order will not affect the criminal proceedings, if any, pending against the petitioner. No costs.