JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the charge-sheet dt. 29th May, 2016 (Annex. 3) wherein four charges have been leveled against the petitioner for committing misconduct under ‘The Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971’. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dt. 27th July, 2017, passed by Director General of Police & issued by the Inspector General of Police (Vigilance) Police Headquarters, Rajasthan, Jaipur, who exercised power under Rule 32 of CCA Rules, 1958 setting aside order dt. 27th February, 2017 of Additional Director General of Police cum IGP Jaipur Range, Jaipur and has further challenged the order dt. 23rd August, 2017 passed by Additional Director General of Police cum Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur wherein he has revived the department enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 16 of CCA Rules 1958 as initiated by charge-sheet dt. 12th May, 2016. 3. The petitioner has further prayed that State Government-respondents be restrained to initiate or to continue any Departmental proceeding against the petitioner under the Charge-sheet dt. 29th May, 2016. 4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector in Rajasthan Police and he was issued a charge-sheet dt. 29th September, 2015, wherein 9 charges were leveled against him in respect of conducting investigation in a criminal case registered at Police Station, Malakheda, District, Alwar. 5. The petitioner was found guilty after holding a regular enquiry and penalty of removal from service was imposed upon him by the Additional Director General of Police, Jaipur Range Jaipur vide order dt. 22nd April, 2017. The petitioner had filed an appeal under Rule 23 of the CCA Rules, 1958, (hereinafter called as ‘the Rules of 1958’). The Appellate Authority decided the appeal of the petitioner vide order dt. 11th July, 2017, but while maintaining the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority substituted the penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement on proportionate pension. 6. The petitioner was issued another charge-sheet dt. The Appellate Authority decided the appeal of the petitioner vide order dt. 11th July, 2017, but while maintaining the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority substituted the penalty of removal from service to compulsory retirement on proportionate pension. 6. The petitioner was issued another charge-sheet dt. 29th May, 2016, wherein following four charges were leveled against him., which is reproduced as hereunder:- ^^vkjksi la[;k 1 & ;g fd vki }kjk HkxoS;k dksey 'kekZ dh ryk'k gsrq Lo;a us tkdj gSM+ dkfuŒ o dkfuŒ dks Hkstk tkdj ykijokgh dk ifjp; fn;kA vkidk mDr vkpj.k jktLFkku flfoy lsok,sa ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e 1971 ds fu;e 3&1 ¼2½ ds rgr vopkj ¼felduMsDV½ gSA vkjksi la[;k 2 & ;g fd vki }kjk mijksDr Vhe dks fu;ekuqlkj ljdkjh [kpsZ ij u Hkstdj eqLrxhl ds [kpsZ ij Hkstk ftlls eqLrxhl dks vkfFkZd gkfu dkfjr gqbZA vkidj mDr vkpj.k jktLFkku flfoy lsok,sa ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e 1971 ds fu;e 3¼2½ ¼1½ ds rgr vopkj ¼felduMsDV½ gSA vkjksi la[;k 3 & ;g fd vki }kjk iqfyl Vhe dks eqLrxhl ds [kpsZ ij Hksts tkus ls eqLrxhl i{k dks f'kdk;r dk ekSdk feyk o foHkkx dh Nfo /kwfey gqbZA vkidk mDr vkpj.k jktLFkku flfoy lsok,sa ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e 1971 ds fu;e 3¼2½ ¼1½ ds rgr vopkj ¼felduMsDV½ gSA vkjksi la[;k 4 & ;g fd vki }kjk crkSj vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh vkius HkxoS;k o vkjksih vt; 'kekZ dh ryk'k gsrq fd;s x;s Á;klksa ds laca/kh esa vuqla/kku laca/kh nLrkostksa dk lgh la/kkj.k ugha fd;kA vkidk mDr vkpj.k jktLFkku flfoy lsok,sa ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e 1971 ds fu;e 3¼2½ ¼1½ ds rgr vopkj ¼felduMsDV½ gSA** 7. The Charge-sheet was with respect to the investigation carried out by the petitioner in a Criminal Case No. 352/2014 Registered at Police Station Shahjahapur, District Alwar under Sections 363, 366A & 120B IPC. It was observed by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner while conducting the investigation, was careless and negligent and as such by not discharging his duties, he is said to have committed misconduct, which was in violation of Rajasthan Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. 8. The petitioner after receipt of charge-sheet submitted his reply to the Disciplinary Authority on 7th December, 2016. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dt. 27th February, 2017, decided to drop the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 and made an order that a separate charge- sheet under Rule 17 of CCA Rules may be issued to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dt. 27th February, 2017, decided to drop the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 and made an order that a separate charge- sheet under Rule 17 of CCA Rules may be issued to the petitioner. The petitioner, who was under suspension was also ordered to be reinstated. The extract of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Additional Director General of Police), Jaipur Range Jaipur, dt. 27th January, 2017which is reproduced as hereunder:- ^^Jh eqds'k tks'kh iq= Jh ykykjke tks'kh] mi&fujh{kd] rRdkyhu Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk 'kkgtgkaiqj] ftyk vyoj gky ftyk >qU>quwa eq[;ky; iqfyl ykbZu] ftyk t;iqj xzkeh.k }kjk vŒ la[;k 352@14 /kkjk 363] 363,] 120chŒ HkkŒnaŒlaŒ iqfyl Fkkuk 'kkgtgkaiqj] ftyk vyoj esa cjrh xbZ ykijokgh ,oa mnklhurk ds Øe esa jktLFkku tuin lsok,sa ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa iqujkosnu½ fu;e 1958 ds fu;e 16 ds vUrxZr bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k la[;k 470&473 fnukad 29-05-2016 ds }kjk vkjksi i= tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA mDr foHkkxh; tkap ds laca/k esa vipkjh vf/kdkjh }kjk ml ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds Øe esa viuk tokc bl dk;kZy; esa fnukad 07-11-2016 dks ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vipkjh vf/kdkjh }kjk mDr foHkkxh; tkap esa fn;s x;s vius tokc ,oa mDr Ádj.k ls lacaf/kr MhŒchŒ gSfo;l dkWÁl fjV fifV'ku la[;k 280@2014 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; jktLFkku t;iqj fnukad 02-11-2016 dks fd;s x;s fu.kZ; ,oa Ádj.k dh xEHkhjrk dk lE;d Hkyh&Hkkafr v/;;u djus ds i'pkr~ Jh eqds'k tks'kh iq= Jh ykykjke tks'kh] mi&fujh{kd] rRdkyhu Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk 'kkgtagkiqj] ftyk vyoj gky ftyk >qU>quwa eq[;ky; iqfyl ykbZu] ftyk t;iqj xzkeh.k ds fo:) jktLFkku flfoy lsok,sa ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa iqujkosnu½ fu;e 1958 ds fu;e 16 ds vUrxZr fopkjk/khu foHkkxh; tkap dks rRdky ÁHkko ls Mªki fd;k tkrk gSA vipkjh mi&fujh{kd] ds fo:) fu;e 17 lhŒlhŒ,Œ ds vUrxZr i`Fkd ls vkjksi i= tkjh fd;k tkosxkA Jh eqds'k tks'kh iq= Jh ykykjke] mi&fujh{kd] rRdkyhu Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk 'kkgtgkaiqj] ftyk vyoj gky ftyk >qU>quwa eq[;ky; iqfyl ykbZu] ftyk t;iqj xzkeh.k dks mDr Ádj.k esa bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k la[;k 315&319 fnukad 03-05-2016 ds }kjk fuyfEcr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldks rRdky ÁHkko ls lsok esa cgky fd;k tkrk gSA mDr mi&fujh{kd] dh fuyfEcr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldks rRdky ÁHkko ls lsok esa cgky fd;k tkrk gSA mDr mi&fujh{kd] dh fuyEcu vof/k dk fu.kZ; foHkkxh; tkap fu.kZ; ds lkFk fd;k tkosxkA** 9. The office of Director General of Police, also received copy of the order dt. The office of Director General of Police, also received copy of the order dt. 27th February, 2017 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The office of Director General of Police (Vigilance) summoned the entire file from the subordinate authorities and after considering all the facts and found that the conduct of the petitioner in conducting the investigation was of negligence and irregularities had been committed by him. The Appellate Authority vide order dt. 27th July, 2017, exercised power under Rule 32 of the CCA Rules, 1958 and order of Assistant Director General of Police dt. 27th February, 2017 was set aside. The Director General of Police further made an order that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 16 of CCA Rules vide order dt. 29th May, 2016, may be given effect to and the enquiry be again conducted from the stage where the charges were dropped. 10. The Authority further found that the petitioner was already awarded punishment of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension in a different charge-sheet and as such by treating the petitioner as retired employee, the direction was given that under Rule 7 of the Pension Rules, 1996, Enquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules may be completed as per law and accordingly action may be taken. 11. The office of the Additional Director General of Police after receipt of order dt. 27th July, 2017, issued the consequential order dt. 23rd August, 2017 and gave directions that the enquiry, which was to be initiated under Rule 17 stands canceled and the charge-sheet dt. 29th May, 2016 is revived and accordingly further Departmental proceedings were required to be conducted as per Rule 16 of CCA Rules. 12. The petitioner feels aggrieved against the order dt. 27th July, 2017, and the consequential order dt. 23rd August, 2017 and further feels aggrieved against the revival of the charge-sheet dt. 29th May, 2016, and has filed the instant writ petition. 13. The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that the orders passed by the authorities are ex-facie misuse of powers, illegal and they are not sustainable in the eye of law. 14. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that petitioner while posted as SHO, Police Station Shahjahapur, District Alwar committed gross negligence and dereliction of duties in conducting investigation and as such he was served with a charge-sheet dt. 14. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that petitioner while posted as SHO, Police Station Shahjahapur, District Alwar committed gross negligence and dereliction of duties in conducting investigation and as such he was served with a charge-sheet dt. 29th May, 2016 under Rule 16 of CCA Rules. The respondents have pleaded that when office of the Additional Director General of Police-cum Inspector General of police passed order dt. 27th February, 2017 & when the order dt. 27th February, 2017, was received in the office of Director General of Police, the entire file regarding DE of the petitioner, was summoned and the matter was examined by the higher authorities. 15. The respondents have submitted that orders dt. 27th July, 2017 and 23rd August, 2017 are detailed and reasoned orders and they have been passed by the Competent Authorities. The respondents have further pleaded that petitioner would get proper and reasonable opportunity to dis-prove the charges against him in the Department Enquiry and as such challenge to the said orders and charge-sheet itself is wholly mis-conceived and not sustainable in law. 16. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the complaint was in respect of an FIR which was registered at Shahjahapur District Alwar with respect to missing of a girl, and a petition was filed at High Court Jaipur Bench, Jaipur D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 280/ 2014 (Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.). During pendency of the said Habeas Corpus Petition, one Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, father of the girl filed an affidavit before the Court that to meet out expenses to visit the area to locate the missing girl by Police Team, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was demanded and paid to the present petitioner. 17. The respondents have pleaded that the Division Bench after taking into consideration the affidavit filed by Mr. Ramesh Chand Sharma and other material on record passed a detailed order on 2nd May, 2016 with directions to the respondents to enquire in the present matter. 18. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Habeas Corpus Petition dt. 2nd May, 2016 is reproduced as hereunder:- “It is stated by the petitioner-Ramesh Chand present in person, that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was demanded and paid to one Mr. Mukesh Joshi, Police Officer. It was for the expenses to visit the area. 2nd May, 2016 is reproduced as hereunder:- “It is stated by the petitioner-Ramesh Chand present in person, that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was demanded and paid to one Mr. Mukesh Joshi, Police Officer. It was for the expenses to visit the area. The petitioner is directed to submit an affidavit for it. At this stage, Shri G.S. Gill, learned Additional Advocate General intervened and submitted that the Administration cannot have any intention to defy the directions of the Court and the orders passed therein. He prayed for two days time to come out with exercise against the defaulting officer in the case of Ramesh Chand and other cases with the information to the Court. The other habeas corpus petitions can also be taken up so that a proper plan can come before the Court. It is not only to comply the directions of the Court but to streamline working of the Police so that any search or investigation may not remain superficial. A mechanism of supervision in the hands of higher officer would be developed. It would be further monitored at the appropriate level. The request is to take up all the habeas corpus petitions, which are oid by more than six months, on the next date of hearing. As prayed, let these habeas corpus petitions be listed on 5th May, 2016, awaiting response of the Government, particularly, in the case of petitioner- Ramesh Chand and for inaction against defaulting officers. Registry is directed to list all other habeas corpus petitions which are filed on or before 31st December, 2015 and are pending. It is made clear that if no action is taken in reference to the order passed in these two petitions against defaulting officers, the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur shall remain present in the court on the aforesaid date. All these habeas corpus petitions would be taken up at 8.00 A.M. In the meanwhile, the petitioner-Ramesh Chand may file an affidavit to substantiate his statement recorded by the Court.” 19. Counsel for the respondents submitted that in compliance of the orders passed by this Court, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhiwadi, District Alwar & he submitted his detailed report dt. 26th May, 2016 and found the allegation proved regarding sending of team for search of Komal Sharma at Kanpur at the expenses of complainant to the tune of Rs. 26th May, 2016 and found the allegation proved regarding sending of team for search of Komal Sharma at Kanpur at the expenses of complainant to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- 20. They have been further stated in the reply that after investigation in FIR No. 352/ 2014, a detailed report dt. 13th May, 2016 was submitted, wherein allegations of gross negligence and irregularities were prima-facie made out against the petitioner. 21. The respondents have pleaded that in spite of Conduct Rules, to be followed by the petitioner, image of the Police Department was maligned and as such act of the petitioner was treated as misconduct, for which he is required to be dealt with in the Department Enquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958. 22. The respondents have pleaded that the Disciplinary Authority without recording any valid and justified reasons after receipt of reply to the charge-sheet, dropped the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules and decided to issue a separate charge-sheet under Rule 17 of CCA Rules for imposing minor penalty. The respondents have asserted that office of the Additional Director General of Police (Vigilance) vide letter dated 22nd March, 2017 summoned the case file relating to disciplinary proceedings & vide order dt. 27th July, 2017, the Director General of Police Revisional Authority-(Appellate Authority) exercised its power under Rule 32 of CCA Rules set aside the order dt. 27th February, 2017. 23. Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:- 1. The power of revision under Rule 32 of CCA Rules can only be exercised when a final order of penalty is passed against the delinquent employee and in the instant case since no final order was passed, as such there is a total breach of Rule 32 of Rules 1958. 2. The power of Revision and Review under Rule 32 does not apply to the stage of charge-sheet, being given to an employee for converting the enquiry from Rule 16 to Rule 17 of CCA Rules. 3. The power under Rule 32 is exercised when there is an appeal which is required to be filed under Rule 23 of Rules of 1958 since there is no final order or penalty order, the appeal being non-maintainable, against such stage of the proceedings, the power of Appellate Authority under Rule 32 cannot be exercised. 4. 3. The power under Rule 32 is exercised when there is an appeal which is required to be filed under Rule 23 of Rules of 1958 since there is no final order or penalty order, the appeal being non-maintainable, against such stage of the proceedings, the power of Appellate Authority under Rule 32 cannot be exercised. 4. The petitioner was not given any notice of hearing and as such the revision authority could not have passed the order without giving proper notice to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order. 5. The decision of the authority to convert the charge-sheet from Rule 16 to 17 is without hearing to the petitioner and as per law laid down by this Court, change of departmental enquiry from Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 to Rule 17 of CCA Rules is not sustainable. 6. The authorities have wrongly invoked Rule 7 of Pension Rules, 1996 and since petitioner had already been compulsory retired, after his retirement, the proceedings could not have been continued under Rule 7 (2) A of the Rules of 1996 & the decision of the authorities to proceed in the matter against the petitioner without seeking permission of the Governor, is illegal. 24. Counsel has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 952/2002 (State of Rajasthan Vs. K.S. Garg and Ors.) decided on 2nd July, 2012. Counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 348/ 2010 (Sh. Shree Kant Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 21st September, 2015. 25. Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Ram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2013 (2) WLC 378 decided on 22nd November, 2012; and in the case of Gautam Jain Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2009 (2) RLW 1772 (Raj.) decided on 15th December, 2008. 26. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the orders which have been passed by the authorities are perfect and legal orders. Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the power under Rule 32 of the Rules 1958 not only apply in the cases where final penalty order is passed, on the contrary it applies to all orders which have been passed in a disciplinary proceedings. 27. Counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the power under Rule 32 of the Rules 1958 not only apply in the cases where final penalty order is passed, on the contrary it applies to all orders which have been passed in a disciplinary proceedings. 27. Counsel submits that the authority vested with power of revision and review under Rule 32 of the Rules 1958 can remit the case back to the authority who has made the order and further can direct the authorities to take action or make enquiry as it deems proper in the circumstances of the case. 28. Counsel for the respondent Dr. A.S. Khangarot, Additional Govt. Counsel, submitted that conduct of the petitioner, was even taken seriously by the High Court while hearing the Habeas Corpus Petition and directions had been given from time to time in the Habeas Corpus to take action against the Defaulting Officer. Counsel submitted that there were serious allegation of violation of Conduct Rules by the petitioner and there was a charge also of accepting money from the complainant for carrying out investigation and as such facts of the case required that petitioner should be proceeded in the Departmental enquiry due to maligning the image of Police department & for committing serious misconduct. 29. Counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner is required to be afforded full opportunity to defend himself in the Departmental Enquiry and at this stage petitioner cannot be allowed to plead that there will be violation of natural justice and he will suffer at the hands of Department Authorities. 30. Counsel submitted that it is always open for the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his contentions before the department authorities and challenge to the charge-sheet is not maintainable before this Court. 31. I have heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 32. It would be appropriate to quote Rules 23 & 32 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958:- “23. Appeals against order imposing penalties : [(1) A member of the Subordinate Service, Ministerial Service or Class IV Service may appeal against an order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified in rule 14 to the Authority as shown below: (1) Subordinate Service : Government in Administrative Department. (2) Ministerial Service : Government in Administrative Department. Appeals against order imposing penalties : [(1) A member of the Subordinate Service, Ministerial Service or Class IV Service may appeal against an order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified in rule 14 to the Authority as shown below: (1) Subordinate Service : Government in Administrative Department. (2) Ministerial Service : Government in Administrative Department. (3) Class IV Service : Head of Department. The government may. However, by a general or special order specify any other authority to whom the appeal may be preferred against the order imposing any of the penalties under rule 14 of these rules by any of the Disciplinary Authority.] 1[Provided that a member of the Ministerial Service or Class IV Service against whom an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 is passed by the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries as Head of Department in respect of embezzlement enquiry cases may appeal to the Government in the Administrative Department in respect of that Department. Provided that a member of the Subordinate Service against whom an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 is passed by the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries as Head of Department in respect of embezzlement enquiry cases may appeal to the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries. Provided that a member of the Subordinate Service against whom an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 is passed by the commissioner for Departmental Enquiries as head of Department in respect of embezzlement enquiry cases may appeal to the Government in the Administrative Department in respect of that Department.] 2[Explanation : Where Government or the Head of Department has delegated the powers of appointment to a Subordinate Authority, the Head of the Department concerned shall bye the Appointing Authority for the purpose of this sub-rule in terms of proviso below rule 2 (a) (iv).] (2) A member of the State Service against whom an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 is made by an authority other than the Government may appeal against such order to the Government. 3[Provided that a member of the 4[Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and the} Rajasthan judicial? 3[Provided that a member of the 4[Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service and the} Rajasthan judicial? Service 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 an authority other than the Government may appeal to a 1[Committee consisting of three judges of the Rajasthan High Court nominated by the Chief Justice.] 2[Provided further that member of the stat Service against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14, under the delegated authority is passed by the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries as Head of Department in respect of embezzlement enquiries case may appeal to the Government in the Administrative Department in respect of That Department.] (3) 3[xxx] 3[(4)] Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) to (3) an appeal against an order in a common proceeding held under rule 18 shall lie to the authority to which the authority functioning as the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of that proceeding is immediately subordinate. 3[(5)] Where an appeal lies to the Government under this rule the decision there on shall be taken after consultation with the Public Service Commission, 4[where such consultation as necessary.] Explanation : In this rule the expression member of a Civil Service" includes a person who has cased to a member of that Service.” Rule 32. The authority to which appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 lies may, if no appeal has been preferred there from, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the records of the case in a disciplinary proceeding held by an authority subordinate to it and after making further investigation, if necessary, revise (any order) passed in such a case and after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary : (a) Confirm, modify or set aside the order; (b) Impose any penalty 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 it considers proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such order as it deems fit. Provided that : 1. Provided that : 1. An order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been give an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against enhanced penalty. 2. if the appellate authority proposes to impose any of the penalties specified in clause (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 in a case where an inquiry under rule 16 has not been held, it shall, subject to the provisions of rule 19, direct such an inquiry to be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry, pass such orders as it deems fit.] 3. No action under this rule shall be initiated more than 6 months after the date of order to be reviewed. It would be appropriate to quote Rule 7 of Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996, which is reproduced as hereunder:- “Rule 7 Disciplinary authority who Instituted proceedings can drop them without submitting its findings to the Governor:- The disciplinary authority which instituted the proceedings against the official before retirement, can drop the proceedings itself after superannuation of the official without submitting its findings to the Governor, if it, on the basis of the defence of the official or the report of the inquiring authority, comes to the conclusion that action under Rule 7 of the Pension Rules is not justified. There is no need to submit a report regarding the findings of the disciplinary authority to the Governor.” 33. The Court finds that Rule 32 of the Rules 1958 gives power to an Appellate Authority to call for and to examine records of the case in a disciplinary proceedings, which is conducted by an authority subordinate to it. Rule further prescribes that after making further investigation, if necessary, order can be revised and passed in a case after consultation with the commission where such consultation is necessary. The power under Rule 32 can be exercised suo-moto or otherwise. 34. The Revisional Authority once come to know that in a disciplinary proceeding, an order is passed and the facts are brought into notice of the revisional authority, such orders can be considered as to whether the case is required to be dealt with by the revisional authority at its own level or it can further remit the case to the authority who has made the order. 35. 35. A bare perusal of Rule 32 reveals that as per Rule 32 (a) the authority can confirm, modify or set aside the Order. The power to deal with any penalty order against which a revision is filed, the revisional authority under Rule 32 (b) can impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order, which is subject matter of review. 36. In the opinion of the Court, if there is any penalty order which is passed and same is being scrutinized by the revisional authority, the power given under Rule 32 (b) can be exercised in respect of the penalty order. The power given under Rule 32 (a) deals with the situation where the order which is sought to be reviewed can be affirmed, modified or set aside. 37. The Court further finds that under Clause (c) of Rule 32, the Revisional Authority can remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such further action or enquiry as it considers proper in the circumstances of the case. There is further power under Clause (d) of Rule 32 to pass orders which are deemed fit by the Revisional Authority. The Court finds that once the power to the Revisional authority is given to call for and examine the records of a case in a disciplinary proceeding, such power can definitely be exercised at any stage of disciplinary proceeding before passing of the final penalty order. 38. There are three safe-guards which are given under Rule 32 of CCA Rules, 1958. The first proviso provides that 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 the enhanced penalty. 39. The said proviso is a safe-guard and confers right to delinquent to file a representation, if the order of the Revision Authority is imposing or enhancing the penalty. 40. The Second proviso to Rule 32 further provides that if the Revisional-Appellate Authority proposes to impose any of the major penalties as specified in Clause (iv to vii) of Rule 14 in case where an enquiry under Rule 16 has not been held, the Revisional Authority can direct to hold an enquiry and thereafter on consideration of proceedings of such enquiry the order can be passed. Proviso (2) to Rule 32 provides second safe-guard to the delinquent employee that if the Revisional Authority directs that any of the major penalty is required to be imposed, proper enquiry is to be conducted and the delinquent has to be given full opportunity to defend his case. 41. The Third proviso to Rule 32 provides a further safe-guard that no action can be initiated more than 6 months after the date of order to be reviewed. The Revision Authority has also to keep in mind that any action under Rule 32 cannot be taken after the period of 6 months from the order which is said to be reviewed. 42. The perusal of these rules, make it very clear that not only against penalty order but against any other order also passed in a disciplinary proceeding, the authority can exercise its power under Rule 32 to make further investigation and pass necessary orders. 43. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that power of revision is available only against final order, does not apply in the cases where no penalty order/final order is passed. The penalty order which is to be ultimately passed is always subject to appeal. The power of Revision which is conferred under Rule 32 is not to be exercised in the context of exercising the same power of the Appellate Authority. It is found by the Court that the legislature while making the Rules of 1958 has given different powers to different authorities which are required to be exercised while deciding the appeal which are filed under Rule 23. The submission of appeals and consideration of appeals are to be governed by the powers which are given to the Appellate Authorities. The power of revision and review cannot be the subject to the same powers which the Appellate Authority exercises while deciding the appeal. 44. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without notice or hearing being afforded to the petitioner, the impugned order could not have been passed, the Court finds that under Rule 32 there are safe-guards which have been provided, if any order is passed for imposing or enhancing the penalty. 44. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without notice or hearing being afforded to the petitioner, the impugned order could not have been passed, the Court finds that under Rule 32 there are safe-guards which have been provided, if any order is passed for imposing or enhancing the penalty. In the present case, the authority has only set aside the order of dropping the charge-sheet against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules passed by the Disciplinary Authority and has given directions to revive the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules. It goes without saying that once the delinquent or petitioner participates in a Department enquiry, all opportunities which are required under law, are to be extended to him. The safe-guards which have been provided in the Rule 32 are required to be followed where any right affecting substantial order of an employee is passed. The court finds that principle of natural justice as has been claimed by the petitioner, cannot be applied to a situation where the Revisional authority call and examine the record of the case in a disciplinary proceeding and after making suitable investigation, if necessary, may revise the order. 45. The submission is made by learned counsel for the petitioner that converting the charge-sheet from Rule 17 to 16 is a gross breach of law as laid down by this Court. 46. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. K.S. Garg (Supra), the Division Bench has considered the order passed by learned Single Judge where the learned Single Judge found that the petitioner in that case had superannuated on 30th September, 1993 and the decision to convert the enquiry from Rule 17 to 16 was taken after a gap of about 4 years from the date of retirement. Learned Single Judge found that since petitioner had retired in that case and as per proviso (b) to Rule 170 of RSR, it was incumbent upon the respondents to obtain sanction of the Governor before initiating the enquiry. The ld. Single Judge had interpreted that no action could be initiated in respect of event which took place more than 4 years before such initiation of enquiry. The learned Single Judge found that proviso (b) appended to Rule 170 of RSR has not been followed by the respondents and as such the punishment order was quashed and set aside. 47. Single Judge had interpreted that no action could be initiated in respect of event which took place more than 4 years before such initiation of enquiry. The learned Single Judge found that proviso (b) appended to Rule 170 of RSR has not been followed by the respondents and as such the punishment order was quashed and set aside. 47. The Division Bench while deciding the appeal filed by the State also took note of the fact that notice of changing of enquiry, was published after 4 years of retirement on 6th May, 1997. The division Bench on account of notice of conversion of enquiry issued belatedly, upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and found that conversion of enquiry order Rule 17 to Rule 16, was not sustainable. 48. In the humble opinion of the Court the said decision has not considered scope of Rule 32 of CCA Rules and in the present case, the power which is given to the Revisional Authority under Rule 32 of the Rules, 1958 is required to be considered. The Division Bench considered scope of Rule 170 of RSR & found there is embargo to give charge-sheet if alleged incident is 4 years old. 49. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sh. Shree Kant Vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), the Co-ordinate Bench has followed the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. K.S. Garg. The Court has considered the facts of the case that petitioner in that case, was issued a memorandum of charge dt. 18th June, 2009 for conducting enquiry under Rule 17 of the Rules 1958 & later on the Department passed order for converting the enquiry from Rule 17 to 16 and violation of principle of natural justice was alleged as no prior notice was given to the employee. 50. In the opinion of the Court, the said judgment does not apply to the present facts of the case and reasoning is also not applicable as the judgment was passed on principles which were laid down by the Division Bench and scope of Rule 32 was not under consideration before the Court. 51. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ram Singh Vs. 51. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, this Court has considered the power of Appellate Authority to confirm/ modify or set aside the order of penalty. The relevant portion of judgment is reproduced as hereunder:- “4. Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958 empowers the appellate authority to confirm, modify or set aside the order of penalty and further to impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority suo moto or otherwise. While invoking powers under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958, the appellate authority is required to call for and examine the record of the case, wherein the subordinate authority has passed the order. The phrase “call for and examine the record of the case” clearly indicates that the appellate authority while exercising powers under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958 is required to consider the entire record of the case objectively and then to arrive at a definite conclusion to set aside, modify, confirm, reduce or enhance the penalty. An objective conclusion can be achieved only by objective consideration. Such conclusion should have sufficient reasons in its support. The order passed by the appellate authority, thus, is required to be a reasoned order. It is also relevant to note that the appellate authority is having appellate powers under Rule 23 of the Rules 1958, wherein the order passed by it is required to be a speaking and reasoned one by making necessary consideration as per Rule 30 of the Rules of 1958. The appellate authority under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958, as a matter of fact, exercises appellate powers suo moto or otherwise, as such these powers are akin to the powers available to the appellate authority under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1958, therefore, an order as per Rule 32 of the Rules of 1958 should also contain reasons after due consideration as per Rule 30. The Court has laid down that Appellate Authority under Rule 32 of CCA Rules, 1958 can exercise the Appellate powers suo-moto or otherwise and these powers are acking to powers available to the Appellate Authority. The Court has laid down that Appellate Authority under Rule 32 of CCA Rules, 1958 can exercise the Appellate powers suo-moto or otherwise and these powers are acking to powers available to the Appellate Authority. In Rule 23 of Rules 1958, the Court has suit observed that any order passed under Rule 32 of Rules of 1958 should also contains request after due consideration as per Rule 30.” 52. In present case the authority while passing the order on 27th July, 2017 has recorded reasons after considering the entire record including observation of High Court made in Habeas Corpus Petition that petitioner was guilty of not carrying out the investigation properly and the entire file relating to the enquiry of the petitioner was called and by giving independent reasoning the impugned order has been passed. 53. In the humble opinion of the Court the said judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, will not help the present petitioner. 54. This Court in the case of Kishan Singh and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2006 (1) 7 RLW 732 has held that perusal of Rule 32 shows that Appellate Authority have the powers to take suo moto cognizance of the matter and after issuing the notice, the Appellate Authority may pass necessary orders in regard to imposing appropriate penalty on the concerned employee. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted as hereunder:- “A bare reading of the above referred rule would show that the appellate authority have the powers to take suo motu cognizance of the matter and after issuing notice, the appellate authority may pass necessary orders in regard to imposing appropriate penalty on the concerned employee. In the present matter, the appellate authority had initiated the proceedings under Rule 32 within one month of passing of the order by the disciplinary authority, as is evident from the order dated 20th March, 1989 itself. Looking to the nature of services and allegations made against the concerned employee, since after due consideration proper discretion has been used by the appellate authority as also the reviewing authority, in the facts and circumstances, no further interference is called for by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits” 55. Looking to the nature of services and allegations made against the concerned employee, since after due consideration proper discretion has been used by the appellate authority as also the reviewing authority, in the facts and circumstances, no further interference is called for by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as having no merits” 55. This Court in the case of Kishan Singh (Supra) was dealing with the situation where disciplinary authority had exonerated the concerned employee and the Appellate Authority issued show cause notice under Rule 32 of CCA Rules for imposing appropriate penalty and after receiving the reply, the Appellate Authority imposed penalty of removal and the same was found to be valid by the Court. 56. This Court has already held that bare perusal of Rule 32 shows that where any penalty is to be imposed, the Rule itself provides that a notice or hearing will be afforded to such persons. In the instant case since there is no notice issued to impose any penalty, the requirement of giving prior notice for changing the enquiry is not required. 57. The petitioner has to participate in regular department enquiry under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 & complete procedure is to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Principle of natural justice is available to the petitioner at several juncture in regular enquiry and merely by changing enquiry from Rule 17 to 16 by Revisional power being exercised, it cannot be said that petitioner is deprived of natural justice. 58. The Court further finds that the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the Habeas Corpus Petition also made certain observations and gave direction to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner. 59. The Revisional Authority while passing the order dt. 27th July, 2017 has used its independent discretion and after considering the record it felt that for the alleged act of the petitioner, department enquiry is required to be conducted under Rule 16 of CCA Rules of 1958. 60. The Court further finds that right to defend in the Department Enquiry is available to the petitioner and at this stage it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 61. 60. The Court further finds that right to defend in the Department Enquiry is available to the petitioner and at this stage it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 61. The Court further finds that Rule 7 of Rules of 1996 provides that the departmental proceeding if instituted while the Government Servant was in service, before his retirement or, after the final retirement of the Government Servant, there will be deemed continuation of proceedings under the Rule and shall be continued and concluded by the Authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. 62. The petitioner has already been visited with the penalty of compulsory retirement on proportionate pension and as such the petitioner is required to proceeded by virtue of power given under Rule 7 of CCA Rules of Pension Rules, 1996. 63. The Court finds that the orders which have been passed by the authorities do not suffer from any illegality. There is no force in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.