JUDGMENT : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Aggrieved by the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority vide an order dated 16.09.2003 (Annex.6), the petitioner filed a review before the Reviewing Authority, which instead turned out to be a self goal, as the punishment was rather enhanced to removal from service vide an order dated 05.10.2009 (Annex.9), the petitioner is before this Court assailing both the aforesaid orders, operation of which was stayed vide interim order dated 26.11.2010, which subsists even as on date. 2. Relevant facts of the case are as below: 2.1. The petitioner, a Physician, while working on the post of Junior Specialist, was served with a charge-sheet dated 11.07.2000 (Annex.1), qua his absence without leave. Disciplinary authority appointed an Inquiry Officer. Vide the inquiry report dated 23.12.2002 (Annex.3) petitioner was exonerated from all the charges levelled against him. 2.2. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority, who issued notice to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a detailed representation (Annex.5), however, Disciplinary Authority straightway awarded a punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide his order dated 16.09.2003 (Annex.6). 2.3. Assailing the punishment, the petitioner preferred a review petition under Rule 34 of the CCA Rules before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan. Vide impugned order dated 05.10.2009, Reviewing Authority instead of enhanced the punishment to that of removal from service. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The defence taken in reply on behalf of the respondents is that the Inquiry Officer conducted shoddy inquiry by not appreciating the documentary evidence adduced by the department. The documentary evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner. It was in this premise that the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Thus, the punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect was awarded taking a lenient view though the petitioner deserved a much harsher treatment. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Governor being a Reviewing Authority is fully justified in enhancement of punishment rightly deserved by the petitioner, given his misconduct. Therefore, order of removal from service does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions, which are on the same lines as the respective pleadings of the parties and have perused the record of the case file. Therefore, order of removal from service does not warrant any interference by this Court. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions, which are on the same lines as the respective pleadings of the parties and have perused the record of the case file. I shall now proceed to render my opinion by recording reasons thereof in the succeeding paragraphs. 4.1. First and foremost, let us see whether the petitioner deserves enhancement of punishment by way of removal from service. In this context Rule 34 of the CCA Rules may first be seen. For ready reference, Rule 34 is reproduced herein-below: “34. Governor's power 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. (d) Pass such other orders as he deems fit: (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. (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 Rajasthan Judicial Service 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.” A perusal of the above, there is no manner of doubt that enhancement of punishment though could have been ordered suo motu, but not after lapse of three years of the punishment of order by the disciplinary authority. On this ground alone enhancement of punishment is liable to be set aside. More of it later. 4.2. On merits of the punishment order, the disciplinary authority has committed a serious error in law in disagreeing with the finding and conclusion of the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer on the basis of available material found the petitioner not guilty of any of the charges, but the disciplinary authority without properly appreciating the finding and conclusion recorded by the Inquiry Officer has passed an order dated 16.09.2003 against the petitioner for stoppage of four annual grade increments. The disciplinary authority, in case of disagreement, should have remanded or remitted back the matter to the Inquiry Officer for reconsidering any evidence, which was earlier not taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer. But in its entire order, the disciplinary authority has not recorded any finding as to which part of available evidence was not taken into consideration by the Inquiry Officer. In the premise, the disciplinary authority was not at all justified in imposing penalty straight away on the petitioner, that too, without recording his own independent conclusion based on cogent findings. 4.3. The petitioner preferred a review petition against the order passed by the disciplinary authority in terms of Rule 34 of the CCA Rules before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan (‘the Reviewing Authority’). 4.4. 4.3. The petitioner preferred a review petition against the order passed by the disciplinary authority in terms of Rule 34 of the CCA Rules before His Excellency the Governor of Rajasthan (‘the Reviewing Authority’). 4.4. Pertinently, before recording his disagreement, Reviewing Authority did not give an opportunity of hearing that it was proposed to enhance the punishment awarded on the petitioner nor any application to this effect was moved by the administrative department before the Reviewing Authority seeking enhancement. Moreover, a limitation of three years has been prescribed under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958. In the present case, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of stoppage of four annual grade increments vide order dated 16.09.2003 (Annex.6). Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958 does not permit the Reviewing Authority to exercise his power after lapse of more than 03 years to suo motu review any order passed by the disciplinary authority. 4.5. Moreover, before proposing an enhanced penalty, RPSC was required to be consulted under Article 320 of the Constitution of India, which specifically provides that in all disciplinary matter and imposition of major penalty, RPSC is required to be consulted. Impugned order dated 05.10.2009 is thus not sustainable on this ground as well. 4.6. Furthermore, the action of the Reviewing Authority is also violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Concededly, the Reviewing Authority before proposing enhanced penalty did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to put up his case before him though the petitioner had supplemented his review petition by a detailed representation. The only course open to the Reviewing Authority was either to allow the petition or dismissed it. But the Reviewing Authority instead of adopting either of the two recourses, enhanced punishment awarded to the petitioner. Same is neither in accordance with Rules nor in accordance with Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the parting, I may hasten to add that qua the power invoked by Reviewing Authority after three years, the controversy is no more res integra. Reference may be had to a judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court presided over by my learned brother Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. in Brijmohan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2019 Supreme (Raj) 866. Reference may be had to a judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court presided over by my learned brother Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. in Brijmohan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2019 Supreme (Raj) 866. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below: “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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The Court finds that order dt. 20.07.2009 is required to be quashed and set aside as the same is not legally sustainable.” 6. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view taken by my learned brother Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 7. As an upshot of my above discussion in the preceding part, read with the judgment rendered in Brijmohan’s case, ibid, the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, both the impugned orders dated 16.09.2003 (Annex.6) & 05.10.2009 (Annex.9) are quashed with consequences to follow. 8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.