Per Massodi, J.;— 1. The Letters Patent Appeal, on hand arises out of the Writ Court order dated 19th July, 2000 whereby the Writ Court has allowed the Writ Petitions registered as SWP Nos. 1135 of 1996 and 1156 of 1996 titled Narotam Sharma v. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh & Ors. and Devinder Singh v. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh & Others and quashed the order of Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh dated 23rd July, 1996 impugned in the Writ Petition. It would be appropriate to have an over-view of background facts, in the first place. 2. The respondents in the appeals were on the relevant date posted as Inspectors, Central Excise Department. The appellants on 15th May, 1994 received a complaint that one Shri Ashok Sharma Inspector, Central Excise had illegally imported ASAFOETIDA (Hing) under the name of trading firm M/s Saimon Exports, 271, Basant Avenue, Amritsar. The investigation into the complaint revealed, involvement of S/Sh. Narotam Sharma and Devinder Singh in the present appeals. They were found to have facilitated the import of aforesaid commodity. 3. The respondents were issued charge-sheets in terms of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 on 7th September, 1995. The charge-sheets issued against S/Sh. Narotam Sharma and Devinder Singh read as under: "That Shri Narotam Sharma, Inspector in connivance with Shri Ashok Sharma, Devinder Singh and V.K.Dhawan, Inspectors had exported Asa-foetida (Hing) of 3300 Kgs in the name of M/s Siamon Exports, 271, Basant Avenue, Amritsar. Later on the consignment was seized by DRI, Amritsar. Shri Narotam Sharma, Inspector helped Mrs. Swaraj and Mr. K. L. Talwar of M/s Siamon in opening C/A in Union Bank of India in the name of M/s Siamon Exports, 271, Basant Avenue, Amritsar. Shri Sharma also threatened pressurized Sh. Vijay Sabharwal to file bill of entry and approached Asstt. Collector, Rail Cargo to complete the clearance formalities for the said consignment. 4. The Disciplinary Authority (Additional Commissioner, Railway Customs and Central Excise Department) after enquiry vide its order dated 02.02.1996 dropped proceedings against the two Officers and held the available evidence to be insufficient to prove the charges. 5. Vijay Sabharwal to file bill of entry and approached Asstt. Collector, Rail Cargo to complete the clearance formalities for the said consignment. 4. The Disciplinary Authority (Additional Commissioner, Railway Customs and Central Excise Department) after enquiry vide its order dated 02.02.1996 dropped proceedings against the two Officers and held the available evidence to be insufficient to prove the charges. 5. The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh in his capacity as Revisional Authority perused the record, found the Disciplinary Authority to have discarded evidence that otherwise was relevant and to have erroneously dropped the proceedings. The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh, accordingly, vide order dated 23.07.1996 set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and remitted the case to it with a direction to proceed with open enquiry as stipulated under Rule 14(v) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 in respect of S/Sh. Narotam Sharma, Devinder Singh and one V.K. Dewan. 6. S/Sh. Narotam Sharma and Devinder Singh approached the Writ Court with Writ Petitions (Narotam Sharma v. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh & Ors. and Devinder Singh v. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh & Others) throwing challenge to the order dated 23.07.1996 passed by the Revisional Authority. 7. The Writ Petitions were allowed and the order impugned therein set-aside. The Writ Court was of the opinion that the revisional jurisdiction in terms of Proviso to Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 is to be exercised by an Authority superior to the Appellate Authority and as the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise was Appellate Authority under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965, he was not competent to exercise revisional jurisdiction and in exercise thereof set aside the order of Disciplinary Authority. The Writ Court further held that the order impugned in the Petition was violative of principles of natural justice. The Writ Petitions were, accordingly, allowed with following directions:- "In view of the arguments noticed at S. No. I and II above, this petition is allowed. The order impugned is quashed. The petitioner be heard in the matter and a fresh order be passed by the authority which is superior to the appellate authority. The petitioner to appear before the Commissioner Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh on 31.08.2000. The order impugned is quashed. The petitioner be heard in the matter and a fresh order be passed by the authority which is superior to the appellate authority. The petitioner to appear before the Commissioner Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh on 31.08.2000. On that date, the matter would be referred to the authority which is superior to the appellate authority. In case the petitioner does not so appear on the said date, the said authority would be at liberty to take ex-parte proceedings." 8. Neither Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh nor the Writ Petitioners are satisfied with the Writ Court order. 9. The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh has filed two Appeals registered as LPA(SW) No. 47/2001 and LPA(SW) No. 114/2001 against the writ Court order on the grounds set out in memoranda of appeals. The Writ Petitioners also question the Writ Court Judgment in Appeals registered as LPA(SW) No, 364 of 2000 and LPA(SW) No. 735 of 2002 to the extent it asked them to appear before the Authority at Chandigarh and left room for reference of the matter to the Superior Authority in terms of Second Proviso to Rule 29 (1)(vi) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965. 10. We have gone through the memorandum of Appeals as also the writ record and have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The fate of all the four Appeals hinges on interpretation of Rule 29(1)(vi). It would be advantageous to reproduce Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. It reads:- "29. 10. We have gone through the memorandum of Appeals as also the writ record and have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The fate of all the four Appeals hinges on interpretation of Rule 29(1)(vi). It would be advantageous to reproduce Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. It reads:- "29. "Revision"-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules: (i) the President; or (ii) the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in the case of a Government Servant serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department; or (iii) the member (Personnel), Postal Services Board in the case of a Government Servant serving in or under the Postal Services Board and Adviser, Human Resource Development, Department of Tele communications Board in the case of Government Servant serving in or under the Telecommunications Board; or (iv) the head of a department directly under the Central Government, in the case of a Government Servant serving in a department or office (not being the Secretariat or the Posts and Telegraphs Board), under the control of such head of a department; or (v) the Appellate Authority, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised; or (vi) any other authority specified in this behalf by the President 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 his or its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules or under the rules repealed by Rule 34 from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred or from which no appeal is allowed, after consultation with the commission where such consultation is necessary, any 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 other orders as 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 to make a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses(v) to (ix) of Rule 11 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 Rule 14 has not already been held in the case no such penalty shall be imposed except after an inquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 14 subject to the provisions of Rule 19, and except after consultation with the commission where such consultation is necessary: Provided further that no power(revision) shall be exercised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, Member (Personnel), Postal Services Board, Adviser, (Human Resource Development), Department of Telecommunications or the Head of Department, as the case may be unless- (i) the authority which made the order in appeal, or (ii) the authority to which an appeal would be, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to him. (2) No proceeding for (revision) 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 (revision) shall be dealt within the same manner as if it were an appeal under these Rules." 12. A Closer look at Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965, would reveal that the Second Proviso to Rule 29(1)(vi) envisions a situation where revisional powers are sought to be exercised amongst other authorities mentioned in the Proviso by Head of the Department in respect of an order passed in an Appeal or in respect of an order against which appeal lies, but has not been preferred. The bottom-line for applicability of Second Proviso to Rule 29(1)(vi) is a provision for an Appeal in Rules, against an order in respect of which revisional power is sought to be exercised. It provides that where an order in respect of which revisional powers are sought to be exercised, is appealable under rules, the revisional powers in respect of the said order or an order passed against the said order in an appeal, can be exercised by Head of the Department only where the Head of the Department is Superior to the Appellate Authority, irrespective of the fact, whether appeal has been or has not been filed against the order. It would not require much effort to understand the logical or rationale beyond Second Proviso to Rule 29. In absence of Proviso, the revisional power could have been exercised by the authority clothed with such powers as against the orders passed by their superior having the appellate power against the order in terms of rules, leading to anomalous situation. To illustrate the head of the department directly under Central Government could on application or even suomotu call for records and revise any order made under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 or rules repealed by rule 34, made by his Superior Officer or an Officer equivalent in rank. The revisional power is essentially a supervisory power and is to be exercised by a Superior Authority, in respect of an order made by the Authority lower in rank or subordinate to the revisional authority. 13. The revisional power is essentially a supervisory power and is to be exercised by a Superior Authority, in respect of an order made by the Authority lower in rank or subordinate to the revisional authority. 13. Against the said backdrop, the second Proviso (Supra) would apply only where the basic order is appealable. In case, the order is not appealable i.e., appeal against the said order is not provided under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, there is no question of there being an Appellate Authority or such Authority being subordinate/lower in rank to Head of the Department and also no apprehension of supervisory power being exercised by the Head of the Department, in respect of an order passed by an Authority equivalent in order of hierarchy or superior to him. In the circumstances, an effort is to be made to examine, whether order in respect of which revisional jurisdiction was exercised by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh is appealable under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965. 14. The order, in respect of, which revisional powers have been exercised by the Commissioner, is the order of Disciplinary Authority (Additional Commissioner, Railway Customs and Central Excise Department) dated 02.02.1996 whereby the proceedings against the appellants/writ petitioners have been dropped and the evidence held to be insufficient to prove the charges. The Disciplinary Authority (Additional Commissioner, Railway Customs and Central Excise Department) in fact, vide Order dated 02.02.1996 exonerated the appellants/writ petitioners. 15. Part (vii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 deals with the appeals. Rule 22 specifies the orders against which no appeal lies. Rule 23 enumerates the orders against which appeal may be preferred by a Government servant and Rule 24 identifies the Appellate Authorities. The right to appeal in terms of the rules is available to a government servant and is restricted to the orders mentioned in Rule 23. The order closing the enquiry on the grounds of no or insufficient evidence is not an appealable order in terms of Rule 23 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965. The right to appeal in terms of the rules is available to a government servant and is restricted to the orders mentioned in Rule 23. The order closing the enquiry on the grounds of no or insufficient evidence is not an appealable order in terms of Rule 23 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965. The Rules in the circumstances, do not provide for appeal against an order like one passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Additional Commissioner, Railway Customs and Central Excise Department) on 02.02.1996 revised by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh. Once the Rules do not provide for appeal against an order, Second Proviso to Rule 29(1) is not correct. The Proviso, therefore, does not bar exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Commissioner, even if, he is taken to have acted in the matter as Head of the Department. 16. This is, however, only one aspect of the case. The other aspects of the case relates to ambit and scope of the Rule 29(v) and Second Proviso to Rule 29(1). It is pertinent to point out that Rule 29 identifies the (i) President, (ii) the Comptroller & Auditor-General, (iii) the member (Personnel), Postal Services Board, (iv) Head of the Department directly under the Central Government, (v) the Appellate Authority and (vi) any other Authority specified by the President. Second Proviso to Rule 29(1) restricts scope of the Proviso to Comptroller, Deputy General, the member (Personnel), Postal Services Board, Advisory Human Resources Development Board and the Head of the Department directly under the Central Government. The aforesaid Proviso does not include the Appellate Authority. It may be noted that in terms of Rule 29(1)(v) the Appellate Authority has revisional powers, provided such powers are exercised within six months from the date of the order proposed to be revised. In other words, the Appellate Authority may suo motu or on application exercise the revisional powers, though, it otherwise can also sit in appeal against the order either suo motu or on motion. However, while appeal may be preferred within the period of limitation or even thereafter, on condonation of delay, the revisional powers cannot be exercised by the Appellate Authority beyond six months from the date of order proposed to be revised. This restriction does not find place in the Rule 29(1)(iv). However, while appeal may be preferred within the period of limitation or even thereafter, on condonation of delay, the revisional powers cannot be exercised by the Appellate Authority beyond six months from the date of order proposed to be revised. This restriction does not find place in the Rule 29(1)(iv). Resultantly, the Revisional Authority other than Appellate Authority may exercise revisional powers, even after six months. Second Proviso to Rule 29(1) would not be attracted in case the Appellate Authority, as it does not find mention in the Proviso. The reason for omission is not difficult to understand. Where the Appellate Authority exercises the revisional powers, there is no scope for violation of the hierarchy rules, as the authority exercising revisional powers is also the Appellate Authority. In the present case, revisional powers have been exercised by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh in his capacity as Appellate Authority. It is pertinent to point out that the order, in respect of which, the revisional powers were exercised by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh was passed on 02.02.1996 and the order in revision was passed on 23.07.1996. The Appellate Authority, therefore, exercised revisional jurisdiction within six months as required in terms of Rule 29(1)(v) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965. 17. The ground urged by the appellants/writ petitioners before the Writ Court as regards violation of Principles of Natural Justice, that appears to have found favour with the Writ Court is devoid of any substance. The Appellate Court while exercising revisional powers in terms of Rule 29(1)(v) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 only remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration in light of the material/evidence before the Disciplinary Authority including the evidence that according to the Appellate Authority had been discarded by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority in terms of the order of Appellate Authority exercising revisional powers is not to widen scope of the enquiry record fresh evidence or go for de-novo enquiry. The appellants/writ petitioners, therefore, are to be heard by the Disciplinary Authority and allowed to project their stand once the Disciplinary Authority deals with the matter afresh. The Disciplinary Authority in terms of the order of Appellate Authority exercising revisional powers is not to widen scope of the enquiry record fresh evidence or go for de-novo enquiry. The appellants/writ petitioners, therefore, are to be heard by the Disciplinary Authority and allowed to project their stand once the Disciplinary Authority deals with the matter afresh. Had the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh reversed the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and held the appellants/writ petitioners guilty of the charges; they could very well have been heard saying that their right of being heard was violated. Here the case is otherwise. The appellants/writ petitioners are to have an adequate, ample and reasonable opportunity to explain their stand before the Disciplinary Authority and make an attempt to persuade the Authority to conclude that the evidence recorded does not bring home guilt to the appellants/writ petitioners. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants in the appeal filed by S/Sh. Narotam Sharma and Devinder Singh lays much emphasis on law laid down in case titled Kailash Prasad Sinha v. Union of India and others, reported as 1983(3) SLR 34 . The Division Bench of Delhi High Court while rendering the judgment in the aforementioned case, did not notice that applicability of Second Proviso to Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 hinges on right to appeal available under rules, though learned Single Judge had pointed out that no Appeal was maintainable against an order at the instance of the Government servant. The Division Bench emphasised that the Second Proviso to Rule 29(1)(v) was applicable whether the appeal was filed or not filed against an order in respect of which revisional power was sought to be exercised. Whether the appeal could be filed and whether appeal was not filed are questions that deal with two different situations. In the later case, Second Proviso would be Attracted but where the Rules provide no Appeal, there is be no Appellate Authority and resultantly, no violation of hierarchy rules. We in the said backdrop do not feel persuaded to agree with the case law sought to be pressed into service by Mr. A.V. Gupta to canvass his stand. 19. For the reasons discussed above, we find merit in Appeals preferred by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh. We in the said backdrop do not feel persuaded to agree with the case law sought to be pressed into service by Mr. A.V. Gupta to canvass his stand. 19. For the reasons discussed above, we find merit in Appeals preferred by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh. Resultantly, appeals are allowed and the Writ Court order dated 19th July, 2000 is set aside. The Appeals titled Narotam Sharma v. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh & Ors. LPASW No. 364/2000 and Devinder Singh v. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh & Others LPASW No. 375/2002 are accordingly dismissed.