ORDER : B. VEERAPPA, J. The Union of India has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 30.3.2015 passed in OA No.1566/2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (for short ‘Tribunal’) allowing the original application filed by the applicant/respondent herein and quashing the order dated 5.2.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority under Rule 29(1)(v) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short ‘Rules, 1965) revising the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 21/22.3.2013 holding that the order was passed beyond the period of six months stipulated under Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965, and also the applicant is entitled to consequential benefits pursuant to his compulsory retirement following the order of the Disciplinary Authority and is also entitled to admissible benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original application before the Tribunal. 3. Applicant filed Original Application No.1566/2013 to quash the memorandum impugned therein contending that he entered the services as Postman with effect from 17.3.1984 and thereafter he was promoted as Postal Assistant and rendered unblemished service all along, but while he was working at HAL II Stage, Head office, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a charge sheet against him and he was convicted vide judgment dated 31.8.2012. Against the said judgment, the applicant filed Crl.A No.1119/2012 before this Court. This Court by the order dated 4.10.2012 suspended the sentence and the matter is still pending. He was compulsorily retired w.e.f. 21/22.3.2013. After the cessation of master servant relationship, respondent No.3 vide memo dated 24.5.2013 proposed to enhance the punishment suomoto from compulsory retirement to dismissal from service by exercising the power under Rule 29 of Rules, 1965. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant made a representation on 10.6.2013 to stop the proposed action on various grounds. The said representation was not considered and ultimately the applicant came to be dismissed from service on 5.2.2014. An application before the Tribunal came to be amended (Annexure-A4). The Tribunal considering the entire material on record by the impugned order dated 30.3.2015 allowed the application and quashed the order dated 5.2.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. An application before the Tribunal came to be amended (Annexure-A4). The Tribunal considering the entire material on record by the impugned order dated 30.3.2015 allowed the application and quashed the order dated 5.2.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 5. Sri Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioners – Central Government vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order dated 5.2.2014 revising the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 21/22.3.2013 is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and as such liable to be quashed. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the order passed by the Appellate Authority exercising the powers under Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965 within six months cannot be sustained. Admittedly, the order of conviction came to be passed by the Criminal Court against the applicant on 31.8.2012 and based on the order passed by the Criminal Court exercising the powers under Rule 19 of the Rules, 1965, the applicant came to be retired compulsorily w.e.f. 21/22.3.2013. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority thought fit that the penalty of compulsory retirement extending pensionary benefits to the accused by the department is not appropriate. Therefore, a notice came to be issued on 24.5.2013 and after enquiry, the applicant came to be dismissed from service on 5.2.2014. Admittedly, from the order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 21/22.3.2013, show cause notice was issued on 24.3.2013 within the time stipulated under Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in quashing the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 5.2.2014 and restoring the order of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 21/22.3.2013. He further contended that Rule 29(2) of the Rules, 1965 provides that no proceeding for revision shall be commenced until after (i) the expiry of the period of limitation for filing an appeal, or (ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred. Therefore, the Revisional Authority could not commence proceedings within 45 days from the order and only after 45 days, a notice was issued and it proceeded to pass the order on 5.2.2014 dismissing the applicant, which is in accordance with law. 6. Therefore, the Revisional Authority could not commence proceedings within 45 days from the order and only after 45 days, a notice was issued and it proceeded to pass the order on 5.2.2014 dismissing the applicant, which is in accordance with law. 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the dictum of Delhi High Court in WP (C) 4335/2014 & CM Appl. No.8685/2015 (DD 23.9.2015) and also relied upon D.G., P. & T., Letter No.6/1/72 – Disc. I, dated the 27th July, 1972), wherein Clause (6) provides how to reckon the period of revision of six months. 7. Per contra, Sri A R Holla, learned counsel for the applicant while justifying the impugned order passed by the Tribunal has contended that admittedly in view of the order of conviction passed against the applicant on 31.8.2013, order of compulsory retirement came to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 22.3.2013 and the Appellate Authority called for the relevant records for suo-motu revision as per the provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1965 and decided to impose the penalty of dismissal from service and issued a show cause notice on 24.5.2013 and after consideration of representation made by the applicant, the Appellate Authority passed the order on 5.2.2014 dismissing the applicant from service after six months as contemplated under Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965. The learned counsel for respondent-applicant further contended that the order passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors. –vs-Vikrambhai Manganbhai Chaudhari reported in (2011) 7 SCC 21. 9. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for our consideration in this writ petition are: i) Whether petitioners have made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal allowing the original application by setting aside the order dated 5.2.2014 and revising the order of Disciplinary Authority and enhancing the punishment in the facts and circumstances of the present case? (ii) Whether the petitioners have exercised the power of revision within six months from the date of order of compulsory retirement passed by the Disciplinary Authority as contemplated under Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965? 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. 11. It is undisputed fact that respondent/applicant initially entered the services as Postman w.e.f. 17.3.1984 and thereafter he was promoted as Postal Assistant. While he was working at HAL II Stage, Head Office, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a charge sheet against him and he was convicted vide judgment dated 31.8.2012. Against the said judgment, applicant preferred Crl.A No.1119/2012 before this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court suspended the sentence and the matter is pending for adjudication. Therefore, the Appellate Authority considering the material on record vide memo dated 24.5.2013 proposed to enhance the punishment suo-motu from compulsory retirement into dismissal from service by exercising the power under Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules w.e.f. 21/22.3.2013. It is not in dispute that the Appellate Authority, Director of Postal Services (HQ), O/o the Chief Postmaster General, Karnataka Circle, Palace Road, Bangalore-560 001, issued a show cause notice dated 24.5.2013 to the applicant in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 29 of the Rules, 1965 that it intends to enhance the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and proposed to modify the order to that of dismissal from service. Accordingly, applicant filed objections on 10.6.2013 and specifically contended that the Appellate Authority is not empowered to enhance the punishment after retirement of a government servant and he requested to drop the proposed action and render justice to him since he had rendered unblemished service to the department. It is also not in dispute that the Appellate Authority considering the objection filed by the applicant by the order dated 5.2.2014 (Annexure-A4 before the Tribunal) dismissed the applicant from service. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners/Central Government contended that the show cause notice came to be issued on 24.5.2013 to show cause as to why the order of compulsory retirement should not be revised. It is relevant to consider the provision of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1965. “15. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners/Central Government contended that the show cause notice came to be issued on 24.5.2013 to show cause as to why the order of compulsory retirement should not be revised. It is relevant to consider the provision of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1965. “15. Rule 29 of CCS (CCAO Rules, 1965, states as under: 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 Resources Development), Department of Telecommunications in the case of a 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, and 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 to or 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:” By careful reading of the said Rules, it can be conveniently considered six stages as under: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules- (i) the President can exercise the revisional power; (ii) the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in the case of a Government servant serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department; (iii) the Member (Personnel) Postal Services Board in the case of a Government serving in or under the Postal Services Board and Adviser (Human Resources Development), Department of Telecommunications in the case of a Government servant serving in or under the Telecommunications Board; (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; (v) the Appellate Authority, within six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised; (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 the such general or special order; 13. Sub-Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 29 of the Rules, 1965 contemplate that the Revisional Authority has power to confirm, modify or set aside the order. 14. Rules 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965 contemplates that the Appellate Authority can exercise the powers of revision within six months from the date of the order proposed to be revised. 15. Though the learned counsel for petitioners tried to convince this Court that Rule 29(2) of the Rules, 1965 provides that 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. With due respect, the said Rules is applicable to Rule 25 of the Rules, 1965, which reads thus: “25. Period of limitation of appeals No appeal preferred under this part shall be entertained unless such appeal is preferred within a period of forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order appealed against is delivered to the appellant: Provided that the Appellate Authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time.” By careful reading of Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965, it specifies that “the Appellate Authority, within six months from the date of the order proposed to be revised has to initiate the proceedings within six months and complete the proceedings within six months and not merely commencement of proceedings to revise within six months. The order passed by the Appellate Authority after eleven months cannot be construed as within six months from the date of the order. 16. The word used ‘within’ under Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965 clearly depicts that the order passed by the Appellate Authority should be within six months including the notice and objection. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted that within six months from the date of commencement of proceedings for revision, then the Appellate Authority should have used the word within six months from the commencement of the proceedings, the order proposed to be revised. Mere use of the word ‘proposed’ does not amount giving time to the Revisional Authority to initiate suo motu revision within six months and decide revision thereafter. Mere use of the word ‘proposed’ does not amount giving time to the Revisional Authority to initiate suo motu revision within six months and decide revision thereafter. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings initiated by issuing show cause notice on 24.5.2013 modifying the dismissal order dated 21/22.3.2013 within six months cannot be construed by any stretch of imagination that Revisional Authority has exercised revision powers within six months as contemplated under Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965. 17. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the D.G., P. & T., Letter No.6/1/72 – Disc. I, dated 27th July, 1972), wherein Clause (6) provides how to reckon the period of revision of six months, a careful reading of the said letter depicts that the Appellate Authority calling for the relevant records of the case with a view to revising an order already passed within six months of the date of the order to be revised would be acting well within this time limit. The said letter does not say that merely because the Appellate Authority initiates the proceedings within six months and the revisional order passed after six months is not appropriate and that is not the intention of the letter. The said letter has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the dictum of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India & ors. –vs-Sri Pal Jain in WP (C) 4335/2014 & CM Appeal No.8685/2015. In the said judgment, the relevant paras are at paras-13 and 14 and in ultimate para-17, it is stated as under: “17. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the Tribunal and High Court of Madras. We hold that the Director Postal Services, being the Appellate Authority has rightly exercised the power under Rule 29(1)(v) and the said power has been exercised within a period of six months by issuing a show cause notice to the respondent which shows that he has conveyed his intention to revise the order. We do not find any illegality in the exercise of power of enhancement of punishment by the Appellate Authority vide order dated February 17, 2011. To that extent the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.” 19. We do not find any illegality in the exercise of power of enhancement of punishment by the Appellate Authority vide order dated February 17, 2011. To that extent the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.” 19. We have considered the said relevant para carefully. It is not the view taken by the High Court of Madras and the Tribunal that the show cause notice was issued within six months and the order was passed after six months. The said judgment also has no application to the facts of the present case. 20. On careful reading of Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules 1965, it clearly indicates that the Appellate Authority shall exercise the power of revision within six months from the date of order proposed to be revised. Therefore, the interpretation made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proposal was made by the Appellate Authority on 24.5.2013 and subsequently the order of compulsory retirement came to be revised dismissing the applicant from service on 5.2.2014 is within the time stipulated under the said Rules cannot be accepted. The order passed by the Appellate Authority revising the order after lapse of six months is impermissible. Our view is fortified by the dictum of the Apex Court interpreting Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965 in the case of Union of India and ors. –vs- Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari reported in (2011) & SCC 321. The relevant paras-7, 8, 10 and 11 read as under: 7. Mr. Chandhiok, learned ASG after taking us through Rule 29 of the Rules submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in quashing the Notification dated 29.05.2001 and the High Court has also committed an error in confirming the same. He further submitted that the High Court and the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the Notification in question does not become bad merely because the time limit has not been provided and according to him, even though Rule 29(1)(vi) provides that such order shall also specify the time within which this power should be exercised in view of Clause (v) which provides six months' outer limit for reviewing the order, the ultimate conclusion of the Tribunal and the High Court cannot be sustained. 8. 8. Inasmuch as the Tribunal and the High Court granted relief in favour of the respondent on the basis of the interpretation of Rule 29(1)(vi) and the Notification dated 29.05.2001, it is desirable to refer the same. The Notification reads as under:- "Ministry of Communications [Department of Posts] New Delhi, the 29th May, 2001 NOTIFICATION No. So..... In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (VI) of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the President hereby specifies that in the case of a government servant serving in the Department of Posts, for whom the appellate authority is subordinate to the authority designated as the Principal Chief Postmaster General or the Chief Postmaster General (other than the Chief Postmaster General of Senior Administrative Grade) of a Circle, the said Principal Chief Postmaster General or the said Chief Postmaster General, as the case may be, shall be the revising authority for the purpose of exercising the powers under the said Rule 29.[No. C-11011/1/2001-VP] Sd/- [B.P. Sharma] Director (VP)" 10. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the above sub-Rule (1) of Rule 29 indicates 6 categories of revisional authorities. If we go further it shows that while no period is mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iv), sub-Clause (v) refers to a period of six months from the date of order proposed to be revised. Since order was passed by exercising power under sub-Clause (vi), we have to see whether in the Notification specifying an authority a time limit has been mentioned or even in the absence of the same, the outer limit can be availed by exercising power under sub-Clause (v). According to learned ASG, there is no need to specify the period in the Notification authorizing concerned authority to call for the record for any enquiry and revise any order made under the Rules. We are unable to accept the said claim for the following reasons. 11. It is to be noted that in cases where the appellate authority seeks to review the order of the disciplinary authority, the period fixed for the purpose is six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised. This is clear from sub-Clause (v) of sub-Rule 1 of Rule 29. 11. It is to be noted that in cases where the appellate authority seeks to review the order of the disciplinary authority, the period fixed for the purpose is six months of the date of the order proposed to be revised. This is clear from sub-Clause (v) of sub-Rule 1 of Rule 29. On the other hand, Clause (vi) confers similar powers on such other authorities which may be specified in that behalf by the President by a general or special order and the said authority has to commence the proceedings within the time prescribed therein. Even though Rule 29(1)(vi) provides that such order shall also specify the time within which the power should be exercised, the fact remains that no time limit has been prescribed in the Notification. 21. The Tribunal considering Rule 29 of the Rules, 1965, the order of compulsory retirement and material on record has recorded the finding that the order passed by the Appellate Authority in exercise of power of revision under Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965, is beyond the period prescribed. Accordingly, the order dated 5.2.2014 passed by respondent No.3 – Appellate Authority was quashed and the order of compulsory retirement dated 21/22/3.2013 was restored. The same is in accordance with law. The petitioners have not made out a case to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of power of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.