JUDGMENT : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. Laying a challenge to the charge-sheet dated 23 rd July, 2010, enquiry report dated 18 th October, 2012 and the punishment order dated 17 th May, 2013, the appellant came before this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 13732/2013. 2. However, the writ petition was dismissed qua the challenge made to the aforementioned charge sheet and enquiry report. As to the punishment order dated 17 th May, 2013, the writ Court dismissed the writ petition observing that the appellant herein has efficacious remedy of appeal under Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. 3. The writ Court observed as under: “Suffice to say that an officer attached to the election process remains under the State Election Commission temporarily. If disobedience of the direction of the election officer is made then it is liable for action on the recommendation of the election officer. The election duties are considered to be sensitive thus disobedience of the directions of the Election Officer remains in the purview of the said officer. The order of State Election Commission dated 24 th November, 2011 cannot be said to be illegal so as the charge sheet subsequent to it. Mere direction for issuance of charge sheet cannot be said to be adverse because punishment depends on the conclusion of the enquiry. The challenge to the charge sheet cannot be accepted on the grounds urged by the petitioner. So far as challenge to the order of punishment and the enquiry report are concerned, petitioner has failed to give any justification as to why remedy of appeal under the CCA Rules has not been availed. The petitioner is having efficacious of appeal to challenge the enquiry report and the order of punishment. Therein, not only factual but legal issued pertaining to enquiry can be considered and decided. This Court has dealt with challenge to the charge sheet, however, challenge to the enquiry report and punishment can be made before the Appellate Authority. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of without causing interference in the charge sheet, however, it is with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal provided under the CCA Rules for challenge to the enquiry report and the punishment order. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of without causing interference in the charge sheet, however, it is with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal provided under the CCA Rules for challenge to the enquiry report and the punishment order. Since, limitation for appeal is provided but taking into consideration pendency of writ petition before this Court, petitioner is given liberty to prefer an appeal within on month from today and, in that case, appeal would be decided on merit after considering all the issues raised by the petitioner.” 4. The appellant, thus, aggrieved by the writ Court’s order dated 29 th August, 2016 has filed the present Special Appeal. 5. Briefly stated, the appellant was posted as Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies at Pali at the relevant time. The allegation against him is that in connection to the election for the Municipal Council to be held on 23 rd November, 2009 the appellant was required to attend a meeting around 05:30PM on 22 nd November, 2009 but he declined to attend such meeting. In relation thereto, he was issued a charge memo vide memorandum dated 23 rd July, 2010 on the following allegation: “That you, Shri Mahavir Prasad Yadav, Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, while working as Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Pali, during the said period, during the Municipal Council General Elections 2009, while being in office, were deliberately absent from the election work of national importance, due to which there was hindrance in the election work of national importance and by disobeying the orders of higher officials, you have committed indiscipline, gross misconduct and negligence towards duty. You are responsible for this. The detailed description of which is mentioned in the statement of allegation.” 6. Aggrieved thereby, and after passing of the penalty order on 15 th May, 2013, the appellant approached this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13732/2013 and the operation and implementation of the said penalty order were stayed by the writ Court by an order dated 30 th July, 2015. That order was put to challenge before the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 895/2015 and the said order was interfered by this Court with a direction to the parties to see expeditious adjudication of the writ petition. That is the background in which, the writ petition came to be decided on 29 th August, 2016. 7. That order was put to challenge before the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 895/2015 and the said order was interfered by this Court with a direction to the parties to see expeditious adjudication of the writ petition. That is the background in which, the writ petition came to be decided on 29 th August, 2016. 7. The first and foremost argument made by the appellant appearing in person is that there is no provision for appeal against the penalty order passed against the officers of the State Government. However, this contention is sought to be answered by Mr. Vigyan Shah, the learned Additional Advocate General with reference to Rules 33 and 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 which read as under:- Rule 33:- Review of order in disciplinary cases against members of the State Services: The Government may, of it own motion or otherwise, call the records or the case in which an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 14 has been made against a member of the State Services, review 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 orders; (b) Imposed any penalty or set aside, reduce or enhance the penalty imposed by it: Provided that an order 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: Provided further that no action under this rule shall be initiated more than three months after the date of the order to be reviewed. [Note: This rule shall not apply in the case of a member of 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 the Administrative Judge or a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court or when an order is made by the [Committee of the Court in appeal.] Rule 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 the 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: Provided that: (i) an order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty: (ii) if the Governor proposes to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 in a case where an inquiry under rule 16 has not been held, he shall subject to the provisions of rule 19, direct that such inquiry be held and thereafter on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry, pass such orders as he may deem fit. (iii) No action under this rule shall be initiated more than three years after the date of order to be reviewed. [Note: This rule shall not apply in the case of a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service [and the staff of Subordinate Courts] against whom an order imposing any of the penaltied 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.] 8. In legal parlance, there is a distinction between a statutory appeal and review. The provisions for appeal and review are definitely different and distinct and operate in different fields in as much as the scope for interference in both the proceedings are quite different. While a review petition is generally decided on the basis of the principles engraved under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a statutory appeal is always open both on facts and in law. While so, we are not inclined to accept the submission so made by Mr. Vigyan Shah, the learned Additional Advocate General to persuade us that the appellant had a remedy in law and therefore the order dated 29 th August, 2016 does not warrant any interference by this Court. 9. Leaving aside this issue, we find that the charge sheet dated 23 rd July, 2010 is quite vague and necessary details were not provided therein. This is well-known in service jurisprudence that a Government employee is required to answer the imputations made in the memorandum of charge. The allegation that on 22 nd November, 2009 a telephonic call was made to the appellant to attend the meeting is definitely too vague. On this issue, we may refer to B.D. Gupta Vs. State of Haryana, 1973 (3) SCC 149 . Similarly, the allegation made in memorandum of charge that by not attending such meeting the appellant had demonstrated indiscipline, grave misconduct and dereliction to duty in relation to such misconduct cannot be countenanced in law for inflicting punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. This penalty would be a major penalty as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1991 (1) SCC 504 and therefore before imposing such penalty the disciplinary authority was required to keep in mind the basic principle whether that was the punishment commensurate with the misconduct alleged and proved in the departmental enquiry. Even if it is accepted that the appellant did not participate in the departmental enquiry on two occasions that, in our opinion, could not have been the reason to pass ex-parte penalty order dated 17 th May, 2013. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to interfere with the order dated 29 th August, 2016 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13732/2013. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to interfere with the order dated 29 th August, 2016 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13732/2013. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. Consequently, the punishment order dated 17 th May, 2013 is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. In normal circumstances, this Court would have remanded the matter before the disciplinary authority for taking a fresh decision in the matter. However, in view of the appellant superannuating from service and the fact that the memorandum of charge was issued to him about 15 years in the past, we are not inclined to remand the matter for a fresh adjudication. 13. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1350/2016 is allowed.