ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dt.20.07.2009 passed by the Reviewing Authority wherein it has set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dt.23.09.2005 imposing penalty of fixing the petitioner’s pay on the minimum pay scale on the post of Constable and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dt.18.01.2006 substituting the penalty with stoppage of five grade annual increment without cumulative effect. The Reviewing Authority by the impugned order has remitted back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for imposing any of the major penalty prescribed in sub-Rule (v to vii) of Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1958. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the show cause notice dt.04.02.2010 issued to him asking his explanation as why major penalty may not be imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who was working as Constable in RAC 8th Battalion, was served with charge sheet dt.07.05.2005 relating to an incident dt.20.03.2005 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was posted as a Guard and he consumed liquor, after Roll Call on 20.03.2005. It was alleged that the petitioner did not discharge his duty, left the camp area and reported back later after getting himself hurt. The Disciplinary Authority had served the charge sheet relating to same incident, bifurcating the change into three separate charges. 4. The charge sheet was served under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct regular departmental enquiry and enquiry report was prepared and submitted on 17.08.2005 and the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Commandant 8th Battalion RAC (IR) passed penalty order dt.23.09.2005 wherein the petitioner was visited with a penalty of fixing the petitioners’ pay on the minimum pay scale on the post of Constable and further directed the petitioner to remain more careful in future and to improve his conduct. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the penalty order dt.23.09.2005, preferred appeal before the Inspector General of Police, RAC-I and submitted that the penalty order was not proper. 6. The Appellate Authority after considering the entire record came to the conclusion that the punishment was excessive and the allegation against the petitioner was not found to be proved. 5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the penalty order dt.23.09.2005, preferred appeal before the Inspector General of Police, RAC-I and submitted that the penalty order was not proper. 6. The Appellate Authority after considering the entire record came to the conclusion that the punishment was excessive and the allegation against the petitioner was not found to be proved. The Appellate Authority set aside the penalty of fixing the petitioner on minimum pay scale and substituted the penalty with stoppage of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect. The Appellate Authority accepted the appeal in part. 7. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the appellate order as well as penalty order, preferred review petition before the Governor under Rule 34 of CCA Rules, 1958. 8. The petitioner was communicated order dt.20.07.2009 on his review petition and the Reviewing Authority found that the charges against the petitioner were of serious nature and amounted commiting major misconduct and as such major punishment was required to be given. The Reviewing Authority set aside both orders of Disciplinary Authority & Appellate Authority and sent the matter to Disciplinary Authority to impose a major penalty under sub-Rule (v to vii) of Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1958 and further directed that notice may be given to the petitioner before imposing the penalty as directed by the Reviewing Authority. The order of the Reviewing Authority was communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department of the Rajasthan Government. 9. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. Commandant 8th Battalion RAC (IR) issued an office order dt.04.02.2010 in pursuance of order passed by the Reviewing Authority and as per directions of the Reviewing Authority, a show cause notice dt.04.02.2010 was also issued asking explanation of the petitioner as to why major penalty may not be imposed on him. 10. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by order passed by the Reviewing Authority and consequential order of issuing show cause notice to him, has approached this Court challenging validity of these orders. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.M. Mehrishi, Adv. at the outset has submitted that though the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority and Disciplinary Authority but he is not pressing the prayer and he is arguing only to the extent of challenging the order passed by the Reviewing Authority. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.M. Mehrishi, Adv. at the outset has submitted that though the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority and Disciplinary Authority but he is not pressing the prayer and he is arguing only to the extent of challenging the order passed by the Reviewing Authority. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order passed by the Reviewing Authority is not legally sustainable as power of the Reviewing Authority conferred under Rule 34 of CCA Rules 1958 cannot be invoked if the order which is sought to be reviewed is passed before three years while the Reviewing Authority exercise its power of review. 13. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per proviso (iii) to Rule 34 of CCA Rules, no action under Rule 34 can be initiated more than three years after the date of order which is to be reviewed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty order in the instant case was passed on 23.09.2005 and the Appellate Authority also passed the order on 18.01.2006 and the review order has been passed on 20.07.2009 and as such the limitation of three years would apply to both the orders i.e. punishment as well as appellate order. 14. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who himself had filed the review petition, had approached the Reviewing Authority to set aside the penalty order as well as order passed by the Appellate Authority and as such the Reviewing Authority could not have exercised the power, while remitting the matter back directing the Disciplinary Authority that major penalty under sub-Rule (v to vii) under Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1958 was required to be imposed against the petitioner. 15. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the power of the Governor under Rule 34 does not mean that he can direct the Authorities/Disciplinary Authority to impose particular punishment against delinquent employee. 16. Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the judgment (Satya Narain Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan) reported in WLC (Raj.) UC 2003 page 476 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has considered the scope of Rule 32(iii) of CCA Rules, 1958 where power of revision is exercised by the Rivisional Authority. 16. Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the judgment (Satya Narain Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan) reported in WLC (Raj.) UC 2003 page 476 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has considered the scope of Rule 32(iii) of CCA Rules, 1958 where power of revision is exercised by the Rivisional Authority. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court has interpreted, the pari-materia provision which is incorporated in Rule 32(iii) where no action can be initiated under Rule 32 more than six months after the date of order which is to be reviewed. 17. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Division Bench has considered the scope of Rule 32(iii) of CCA Rules, on the same analogy the power of Governor, under Rule 34(iii) also, no action can be initiated if period of more than three years have passed from the date the order is sought to be reviewed. 18. This Court by order dt.31.03.2010 had passed an interim order and restrained the respondents from removing the service of the petitioner. 19. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order passed by the authorities and submits that power of Governor under Rule 34 includes the power to remit the case to the Authority which passed the order and can further direct to any other authority for taking further action or make enquiry, as the Reviewing Authority thinks proper, under the circumstances of a particular case. 20. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, submits that the power of the Governor under Rule 34 takes into the ambit, the power to direct the Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority to take action which is required in a particular case. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, submits that the Reviewing Authority has recorded the finding that behaviour of the petitioner who is a Constable in a civil police, required devotion to duty and he was to maintain discipline. The Reviewing Authority thought that the petitioner who is alleged with charge of consuming liquor and who fled away from the duty, required to be dealt with a severe punishment and as such the Reviewing Authority exercised the power in bonafide manner. 21. Dr. The Reviewing Authority thought that the petitioner who is alleged with charge of consuming liquor and who fled away from the duty, required to be dealt with a severe punishment and as such the Reviewing Authority exercised the power in bonafide manner. 21. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, submits that proviso (iii) to Rule 34, does not mean that the power of Governor can be curtailed in any manner and the period of three years for reviewing the order, cannot curtail the power, which is conferred on the Governor to exercise the power of review. 22. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has followed the proper procedure of giving show cause notice before imposing any of the penalty as suggested by the Governor while deciding the review petition. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, submits that the Reviewing Authority has not given any specific direction to impose a particular penalty and he had left it to the wisdom of the Disciplinary Authority to exercise its independent power to impose any of the penalties provided under sub-Rule (v to vii) of Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1958. 23. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. 24. It would be appropriate to quote the Rule 34 of CCA Rules, 1958 and the same is quoted hereunder:- “34. 23. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. 24. It would be appropriate to quote the Rule 34 of CCA Rules, 1958 and the same is quoted hereunder:- “34. Governor’s powers to review : Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Governor may, on his own motion or otherwise, after calling for the records of the case, review any order which is made or appealable under these rules or the rules repealed by rule 35 and, after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary: (a) Confirm, modify or set aside the orders; (b) Impose any penalties or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; (c) Remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such further action or inquiry as he considers proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) Pass such other orders as he deems fit: Provided that : (i) an order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty : [(ii) if the Governor proposes to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 in a case where an inquiry under rule 16 has not been held, he shall subject to the provisions of rule 19, direct that such inquiry be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry, pass such orders as he may deem fit.] [(iii) No action under this rule shall be initiated more than three years after the date of order to be reviewed.] [Note : This rule shall not apply in the case of a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service 3[and the staff of Subordinate Courts] against whom an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 14, except the penalty of removal or dismissal from service is made by the Administrative Judge or a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court or when an order is made by the Committee of the Court in appeal.]” Rule 14 of CCA Rules, 1958 provides different penalties which can be imposed and same is quoted hereunder:- “14. Nature of Penalties : The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, which shall be recorded, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely : (i) censure; (ii) withholding of increments or promotion; (iii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of any law, rule or order; (iv) reduction to a lower service, grade or post; or to a lower time 1[scale or to a lower stage in the time] scale or in the case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules; (v) compulsory retirement on proportionate pension; (vi) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for further employment; (vii) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for further employment.” 24. The Court finds that the penalty order in the instant case was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 23.09.2005 and the Appellate Authority passed the order on 18.01.2006. The order which has been passed by the Governor under Rule 34 is dt.20.07.2009. The two impugned orders challenged by the petitioner before the Reviewing Authority, were required to be considered by the Governor as per powers conferred on him by virtue of Rule 34 of CCA Rules, 1958. 25. The Rule making authority in its wisdom has provided outer limit of limitation of three years for reviewing the order passed by the authorities. In the opinion of the Court, the limitation cannot be stretched or extended for invoking the power conferred under Rule 34. The purpose of providing limitation of three years is required to be followed and if any delinquent files review petition, the Reviewing Authority can exercise any of the powers which are conferred like modifying, setting aside or confirming orders or it can impose any penalties or it can set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty. 26. A perusal of Rule further shows that the Reviewing Authority is also having full competence to remit the case to the Authority which made the order or any other Authority directing further action or enquiry as it deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case. However, proviso (iii) puts a restriction that any action which is to be taken under Rule 34, has to be initiated within three years from the date of order which is sought to be reviewed. 27. However, proviso (iii) puts a restriction that any action which is to be taken under Rule 34, has to be initiated within three years from the date of order which is sought to be reviewed. 27. The Division Bench of this Court has considered the scope of Rule 32(iii) of CCA Rules 1958. The said Rule 32(iii) is a parimateria to Rule with proviso (iii) of Rule 34. The Division Bench of this Court while interpreting Rule 32(iii) has held that if action of the Reviewing Authority was initiated more that six months after the order imposing punishment by the Disciplinary Authority, the order was found not legally sustainable and the Court has allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner in that case. 28. In the opinion of the Court, the present order which has been passed by the Reviewing Authority is not legally sustainable and it is passed in violation of the outer time limit which has been prescribed under Rule 34. 29. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, submits that the power of the Governor can have no fetters and same power can be exercised by directing further action considering circumstances of the each case, the Court finds that various power conferred upon the Governor to review the order, has to be guided by the time limit which has been prescribed under Rule 34. There is no dispute on the fact that the Governor enjoys various powers as given in Rule 34, even he himself can enhance the penalty after giving show cause notice to a person concerned. However, the power is circumscribed by the statutory limit which has been prescribed under Rule 34. 30. The Court finds that order dt.20.07.2009 is required to be quashed and set aside as the same is not legally sustainable. 31. The writ petition is allowed, the order dt.20.07.2009 and consequential order dt.04.02.2010 and notice dt.04.02.2010 are quashed and set aside. The order passed by the Appellate Authority dt.18.01.2006 is maintained and the petitioner may be visited with the penalty of stoppage of five annual grade increment without cumulative effect in pursuance of the charge sheet which was served on him on 07.04.2005. The direction may be complied with by respondents within the period of two months. No order to cost.