Judgment 1. This writ petition is the transferred O.A.No.4735/2002 filed on the file of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of the first respondent passed in G.O.Ms.No.557, Revenue Department dated 31.10.2000. 2. Short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was working as Village Administrative Officer. He was arrested on 03.03.1989 and produced before the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri by the Vigilance and Anticorruption Department in C.C.No.17/90 for an offence said to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, by the judgment dated 26.07.1995, the Criminal Court acquitted the petitioner. On 16.07.1996, the first respondent Government issued G.O.Ms.No.185, Revenue Department, directing the initiation of departmental proceedings for the same set of charges. Consequently, a charge memo was issued on 28.11.1997. An enquiry was conducted and after completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 22.05.1998, holding that the charges as not proved. Consequently, the second respondent through his order dated 24.06.1998 dropped the charges against the petitioner and directed him to submit a separate application for full wages for the period of suspension and for treating the same as on duty. However, after a period of 1 ½ years from the date of the said order, the first respondent Government issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 08.02.2000 under Rule 36 of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules by exercising its suo moto power of review for holding the charges to prove and impose penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted his reply on 19.06.2000. Thereafter, the first respondent Government passed the impugned G.O. on 31.10.2000 imposing a penalty of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect. Thus, the said order of the first respondent is challenged in this writ petition. 3. The respondent filed counter affidavit and supported the order passed by the first respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. In this case, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo on 28.11.1997. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 22.05.1998, holding the charges as not proved. Consequently, the second respondent passed an order on 24.06.1998, dropping the charges. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. In this case, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo on 28.11.1997. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 22.05.1998, holding the charges as not proved. Consequently, the second respondent passed an order on 24.06.1998, dropping the charges. Only the said order of the second respondent was sought to be reviewed by the first respondent Government by exercising its power under Rule 36 of the said Rules. 6. Before considering as to whether the exercise of such power by the first respondent Government was in accordance with rules, let me extract the relevant Rule of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as referred hereunder: 36. Revision-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rule- (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 department, or (iii) the appellate authority, other than the State Government, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised; or" (G.O.Ms.No.63, P&A.R(N), dated 2.2.96) (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 Tamilnadu 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." 7. Thus, a perusal of the Rule 36 would show that the State Government can exercise the power of revision as against the order passed by the second respondent herein only within six months from the date of the said order. Thus, a perusal of the Rule 36 would show that the State Government can exercise the power of revision as against the order passed by the second respondent herein only within six months from the date of the said order. Clause (iii) of Rule 36 (1) makes it abundantly clear that such exercise of confirmation, modification or setting aside of the order shall be done by the State Government or the head of the Department directly under the State Government or the Appellate Authority other than the State Government, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised. 8. Admittedly, in this case, the order which is sought to be revised by the first respondent came to be passed on 24.06.1998. But the show cause notice itself was issued by the first respondent Government under Rule 36(1) of the said Rules only on 08.02.2000. Therefore, it is clear that the very initiation of the review proceedings under Rule 36 was made only after a period of nearly 1½ years. In my considered view, the very issuance of notice on 08.02.2000, is undoubtedly barred under Rule 36(1)(iii) of the said Rules. In fact, the said Rule contemplates that the confirmation or modification or setting aside the order sought to be revised has to be made within a period of six months. 9. In this case, not only the show cause notice was issued after a period of nearly 1½ years and the very order impugned in this writ petition also came to be made after a period of eight months from the date of issuance of the said show cause notice. Therefore, on this sole ground, I am of the view that the writ petitioner is entitled to succeed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the first respondent is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to disburse all the services benefits available to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.