JUDGMENT : Heard, Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. None appears for the respondent No. 4 (Mizoram Public Service Commission). 2. Brief facts essential for disposal of the writ petition may be noticed at the outset. 3. The petitioner who was working as District Civil Supply Officer (DCSO), Kolasib was placed under suspension vide Order dated 10.10.2014 by the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department (respondent No. 2) pending drawal of disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge dated 23.12.2014 (Annexure-2) and along with it, Articles of charge alleging that the petitioner while functioning as District Civil Supply Officer, Kolasib during the period from April 2012 to 10th October, 2014 had indulged in illegal selling of 150 quintals of Government rice from the Godown of the Department at Kolasib. Therefore, his action being unbecoming of a Government servant, amounted to violation of Rule 3 (1)(i)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner was therefore asked to submit his written statement of defence within 10 days of receipt of the memorandum of charge. 4. In response to the memorandum of charge, the petitioner filed his representation before the respondent No. 2 on 05.01.2015 denying the charges framing against him and expressed his desire to be heard in person. 5. Following the issuance of the memorandum of charge, a full fledged departmental proceedings was instituted against the petitioner and the appointed Inquiry Officer upon conclusion of the proceedings submitted an Inquiry Report on 28.10.2015 where after, a copy of the same was furnished to the petitioner to enable him make a representation if any vide Communication dated 27.11.2015 (Annexure-5). Although the petitioner submitted his representation against the Inquiry Report, the disciplinary authority not being satisfied with his representation and by accepting the Inquiry Report imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner vide the impugned Order dated 26.05.2016 (Annexure-7). Although the petitioner submitted his representation against the Inquiry Report, the disciplinary authority not being satisfied with his representation and by accepting the Inquiry Report imposed a major penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner vide the impugned Order dated 26.05.2016 (Annexure-7). The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram under Rule 23 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which however was rejected by the respondent authority concerned vide Communication dated 01.08.2016 (Annexure-9) on the ground that no appeal lies against the order passed by the Governor under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 6. The petitioner thereafter, filed a review petition under Rule 29-A of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 before the Governor of the State which again was rejected on the ground that unless there is a new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the impugned order, there can be no ground for reviewing the impugned order. Thereafter, the petitioner on 19.04.2017 (Annexure-12) preferred a revision petition under Rule 29 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 before the Governor of the State. The revision petition was subsequently rejected vide the impugned Order dated 03.10.2017 (Annexure-13) by confirming the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challenge to the impugned orders imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner and the rejection of his revision petition, amongst others, are basically on two grounds. He submits that before imposition of the impugned order of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, the respondent authority consulted the respondent No. 4 which is discernable from the impugned Order dated 26.05.2016 itself. He submits that on being consulted, the respondent No. 4 opined that the penalty proposed to be awarded to the petitioner was commensurate to the offence committed and accordingly, the same was conveyed vide their letter under Memo No. C. 14011/3/2016-MPSC dated 31.03.2016. 8. He submits that on being consulted, the respondent No. 4 opined that the penalty proposed to be awarded to the petitioner was commensurate to the offence committed and accordingly, the same was conveyed vide their letter under Memo No. C. 14011/3/2016-MPSC dated 31.03.2016. 8. The learned counsel further submits that as per Rule 15 (3)(b) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the disciplinary authority is required to forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the advice of the Commission to the Government servant and who shall be required to be submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the said authority within a period of 15 days on the advice of the Commission. The learned counsel by referring to the case of Union of India and Others Vs. S.K. Kapoor, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 589 submits that the Apex Court in that case has held that if the report of the UPSC is relied upon by the disciplinary authority, it must be supplied in advance to the employee concerned, otherwise, there will be violation of principles of natural justice. The said decision was also relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India & Others Vs. Dharmeswar Payeng, reported in 2017 (5) GLT 912. He therefore submits that non-supply of the opinion of the respondent No. 4 to the petitioner prior to imposing of impugned penalty of dismissal from service has only vitiated the impugned Order and therefore, an appropriate interference of this Court is called for. 9. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel secondly submits that although the petitioner submitted his revision petition under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by raising certain grounds for preferring the revision petition. But however, the authority concerned without considering the same and in view of the opinion rendered by the MPSC (respondent No. 4) rejected the review petition and confirmed the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner. By referring to Rule 29 (3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, the learned counsel submits that a revision petition under the said provision has to be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under the said Rules. By referring to Rule 29 (3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, the learned counsel submits that a revision petition under the said provision has to be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under the said Rules. Rule 27 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides for consideration of appeal and sub-rule (2) of Rule 27 provides for the factors to be considered in case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalty specified under Rule 11 which includes the penalty of dismissal from service as was imposed upon the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent authority concerned having dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner without proper consideration, the impugned Order dated 03.10.2017 rejecting the revision petition and also the Order dated 26.05.2016 by which major penalty of dismissal of service was imposed upon the petitioner is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 10. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is too severe a penalty considering the minor penalties imposed upon other officers and staff of the Department who in fact were charged with much severe misdeeds. The petitioner in the present case in fact has not committed any misappropriation but he was still dismissed from service. In this connection, he relies upon the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs. Triveni Sharan Mishra, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 346 . Referring to the said decision, the learned counsel submits that the Apex Court accepted the view taken by the High Court in allowing the writ petition and directing the employer to consider imposition of a penalty similar to the one imposed on a similarly situated employee. 11. The learned counsel thus submits that besides the opinion of the respondent No. 4 not having been supplied to the petitioner prior to imposition of the impugned penalty and the revision petition having been rejected without any consideration, Court may suitably interfere in the matter as may be deemed to be appropriate. 12. Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, the learned Government Advocate representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity during the departmental proceedings. 12. Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, the learned Government Advocate representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity during the departmental proceedings. He was supplied with a copy of the Inquiry Report and allowed to file representation against the same and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities have violated the principles of natural justice. Referring to Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, more particularly, sub-rule (4) of Rule 15. The learned Government Advocate submits that it is not at all necessary for the disciplinary authority to give an opportunity to the Government servant to submit a representation against the penalty proposed to be imposed and likewise, it is also not necessary to furnish a copy of the advice of the Commission as well. 13. The learned Government Advocate further submits that from a perusal of the Order dated 03.10.2017 by which the revision petition of the petitioner was rejected, it can be seen that the authority concerned examined all the case record, the revision petition and other relevant materials and it was only after such consideration that the same was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance. She further submits that the petitioner cannot claim or compare himself to the other officials who were given a lighter punishment other than removal from service inasmuch as the delinquent officers who were proceeded against in similar departmental proceedings had admitted the charge. Therefore, considering their admission, a penalty other than dismissal from service including recovery of the alleged misappropriation amount has been passed against them. Under such circumstances, there is nothing wrong with the impugned penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner and the subsequent rejection of the writ petition. The writ petition being without any merit should be dismissed. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. Adverting to the arguments of the learned Government Advocate that furnishing of the Inquiry Report and even the Commission Report/ Opinion is not at all required under Rule 15 (4) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, the same cannot be accepted in view of the instruction issued by the Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Training on 31.10.2014. Adverting to the arguments of the learned Government Advocate that furnishing of the Inquiry Report and even the Commission Report/ Opinion is not at all required under Rule 15 (4) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, the same cannot be accepted in view of the instruction issued by the Government of India in the Department of Personnel and Training on 31.10.2014. From the 2015 as well as 2019 Edition of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, it may be noticed that against Rule 15 of Sub-Rule (2) (3), an addition has been made that if the disciplinary authority is not the Inquiry Authority, it would be required to furnish a copy of the Inquiry Report to the Government servant giving him an opportunity to file a representation. Further, if the Commission is consulted by the disciplinary authority, a copy of such opinion or advice has to be furnished to the Government servant and he shall have the liberty to submit a representation against the same, if so desired. The addition was made vide the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training Notification No. 11012/20/1998-Estt (A) dated 02.09.2000 and also Notification No. F. 11012/8/2011-Estt (A) dated 31.10.2014. 16. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of S.K. Kapoor(Supra) clearly provides that if the report or opinion of the Commission is not relied upon by the disciplinary authority, it will not be necessary to supply a copy of the same to the employee concerned. However, if the same is relied upon by the disciplinary authority, it will have to be supplied well in advance to the employee otherwise, there will be a violation of the principles of natural justice. 17. In the present case, there cannot be any manner of dispute that the respondent No. 4 was consulted before imposition of the impugned penalty upon the petitioner inasmuch as the same is clearly reflected both in the impugned Order dated 26.05.2016 and also in the impugned Order dated 03.10.2017. Therefore, a copy of the opinion ought to have been given to the petitioner before the penalty was imposed on him. 18. The next question which may be considered from the projection made by the parties is with regard to the manner in which the revision petition filed under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is to be considered. 18. The next question which may be considered from the projection made by the parties is with regard to the manner in which the revision petition filed under Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is to be considered. A perusal of sub-rule (3) of Rule 29 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 would go to show that an application for revision is to be dealt with in a manner similar to an appeal under the said Rules. Rule 27 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 deals with consideration of appeal. For ready perusal, the same may be abstracted below :- “27. Consideration of appeal (1) In the case of an appeal against an order of suspension, the Appellate Authority shall consider whether in the light of the provisions of Rule 10 and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the order of suspension is justified or not and confirm or revoke the order accordingly. (2) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 11 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules, the Appellate Authority shall consider a) whether the procedure laid down in these rules has been complied with and if not, whether such non-compliance has resulted in the violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India or in the failure of justice; b) whether the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are warranted by the evidence on the record; and c) whether the penalty or the enhanced penalty imposed is adequate, inadequate or severe; and pass orders- (i) confirming, enhancing, reducing, or setting aside the penalty; or (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of these cases:” 19. From the above abstract, it can be seen that the factors to be considered by the authority concerned while dealing with an appeal is clearly provided. The petitioner by filing his revision petition on 19.04.2017 had taken various grounds for filing the revision petition which inter alia includes that there was no specific charge of misappropriation of Government money and that in other cases, where misappropriation of Government money was involved, a lesser penalty had been imposed. The petitioner by filing his revision petition on 19.04.2017 had taken various grounds for filing the revision petition which inter alia includes that there was no specific charge of misappropriation of Government money and that in other cases, where misappropriation of Government money was involved, a lesser penalty had been imposed. The grounds taken by the petitioner apparently appears to have not been properly considered by the respondent authority concerned while rejecting his revision petition. The same can be clearly appreciated from the manner in which the revision petition got rejected vide the impugned Order dated 03.10.2017. The relevant portion of the said Order may be abstracted below:- “AND WHEREAS, on examination of all the case records, revision petition, and Revising Authority decides that as a matter of rule, the MPSC has ruled that the severity of the crime committed by the said Pu P.L. Zohmingliana warrant dismissal from service and the decision of the MPSC shall have to be respected and honoured. NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 29 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 the Governor of Mizoram hereby confirm the penalty ‘dismissal from service’ already imposed upon Pu P.L. Zohmingliana. By order in the name of the Governor.” 20. Thus, on a overall appreciation of the case projected by the petitioner and the materials available on record, I am of the considered view that the impugned Orders dated 26.05.2016 and 03.10.2017 are vitiated on account of the observations made hereinabove. In the result, I find merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the Order dated 26.05.2016 as well as the Order dated 03.10.2017 are hereby set aside. 21. The matter is now remanded back to the disciplinary authority who shall furnish a copy of the opinion/advice rendered by the respondent No. 4 as was conveyed vide their letter No. C.14011/3/2016-MPSC dated 31.03.2016 to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be given an adequate opportunity for submitting his representation against the opinion rendered by the respondent No. 4 as may be stipulated by the disciplinary authority. On receipt of the representation, the disciplinary authority shall pass an appropriate and speaking order as may be found justified. Copy of the order to be passed shall be communicated to the petitioner. 22. On receipt of the representation, the disciplinary authority shall pass an appropriate and speaking order as may be found justified. Copy of the order to be passed shall be communicated to the petitioner. 22. It is needless to mention herein that the petitioner if so aggrieved will have the liberty to avail for the statutory remedy as may be available to him. 23. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.