Order : (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) 1. The short question involved in this writ petition for determination is, whether the appellate authority (Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur), after having allowed the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner herein under Rule 23(i) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the Rules’) allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of termination passed by the Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur, under Rule 29 of the Rules, is justified in exercising the review jurisdiction under Rule 29(1)(iii) of the Rules? 2. The aforesaid question of law arises for consideration in the following factual backdrop: - 3. The petitioner herein was appointed as Assistant Grade-III on compassionate basis on 25-8-1998 and on the basis of certain complaints made, the disciplinary authority (Collector) initiated departmental proceeding against her which resulted in her termination under Rule 10 of the Rules, which she questioned before the appellate authority (Commissioner) by filing appeal under Rule 23(i) of the Rules, which was ultimately granted by the Commissioner by order dated 16-6- 2014. However, thereafter, the Collector (disciplinary authority) wrote a letter to the appellate authority (Commissioner) on 4-8-2014 for reviewing its order dated 16- 6-2014, which the appellate authority (Commissioner) taken cognizance of on 8-1-2016 and ultimately, reviewed its order dated 16-6-2014 by setting aside the same and allowing the review on 27-2-2017 in exercise of power under Rule 29(1)(iii) of the Rules resulting in filing of this writ petition questioning the order of the appellate authority (Commissioner). 4. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that power under Rule 29(1)(iii) of the Rules is not really in the nature of review of its earlier order which is sought to be reviewed, it does empower the authority reviewing its own order, it is rather power akin to the revisional power and it is a power of review on merits and therefore the order of the appellate authority (Commissioner) reviewing its earlier order exercising power under Rule 29(1) (iii) of the Rules is without jurisdiction and without authority of law and it is liable to be quashed. 5. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, would support the impugned order and submit that the Commissioner is absolutely justified in reviewing its order dated 16-6-2014 and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. 5. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, would support the impugned order and submit that the Commissioner is absolutely justified in reviewing its order dated 16-6-2014 and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 7. It is not in dispute that the appellate authority (Commissioner) while exercising power under appeal under Rule 23(i) of the Rules, allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein, which the Collector requested to review and which was ultimately reviewed by the appellate authority (Commissioner) exercising power under Rule 29(1)(iii) of the Rules as if the Commissioner is the reviewing authority within the meaning of Rule 29(1)(iii). 8. In order to examine the question, it would be appropriate to notice Rules 23 and 24 of the Rules, which state as under: - “23. Orders against which appeal lies.-Subject to the provisions of Rule 22, a Government servant may prefer an appeal against all or any of the following orders, namely: - (i) an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 whether made by the disciplinary authority or by any appellate or reviewing authority; (ii) an order enhancing any penalty, imposed under Rule 10; (iii) an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 9. Explanation.-In this rule the expression “Government servant” includes a person who has ceased to be in Government service. 24. Appellate Authorities.-(1) A Government servant, including a person who has ceased to be in Government service, may prefer an appeal against all or any of the orders specified in Rule 23 to the authority specified in this behalf either in the Schedule or by a general or special order of the Governor or, where no such authority is specified— (i) where such Government servant is or was a member of a State Civil Service, Class I or Class II or holder of a State Civil Post, Class I or Class II.- (a) to the appointing authority, where the order appealed against is made by an authority subordinate to it; or (b) to the Governor, where such order is made by any other authority. (ii) where such Government servant is or was a member of a State Civil Service, Class III or Class IV or holder of a State Civil Post, Class III or Class IV, to the authority to which the authority making the order appealed against is immediately subordinate. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) - (i) 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; (ii) where the person who made the order appealed against becomes, by virtue of his subsequent appointment or otherwise, the appellate authority in respect of such order, an appeal against such order shall lie to the authority to which such person is immediately subordinate.” 9. A careful perusal of Rule 23 of the Rules reveals that it only provides remedy of appeal to the Government servant to prefer an appeal against all or any of the orders covered under clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of the said Rule. The appellate authorities have been prescribed in Rule 24 of the Rules under which again power has been conferred to the Government servant to prefer an appeal against all or any of the orders specified in Rule 23 to the authority specified in this behalf either in the Schedule or by a general or special order of the Governor or, where no such authority is specified in clauses (i) and (ii) of Rule 24(1). 10.As such, from a close scrutiny of Rules 23 and 24 of the Rules, it is quite vivid that only remedy of appeal has been conferred to the Government servant against the order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 10 or the order enhancing any penalty, imposed under Rule 10 or the order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 9, and an explanation has been appended to Rule 23 which says that the expression “Government servant” includes a person who has ceased to be in Government service. 11.Part VIII of the Rules contains provision for Review. Rule 29 of the Rules states as under: - “29. 11.Part VIII of the Rules contains provision for Review. Rule 29 of the Rules states as under: - “29. (1) Notwithstanding any thing contained in these rules except Rule 11,- (i) the Governor, or (ii) the Head of a Department under the State Government, in the case of a Government servant serving in a department or office (not being the secretariat), under the control of such Head of a Department; or (iii) the appellate authority, within six months of date of the order proposed to be reviewed; or (iv) any other authority specified in this behalf by the Governor 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 review 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 inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit : Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any reviewing authority unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed and where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought to be reviewed to any of the penalties specified in those clauses, no such penalty shall be imposed except after an inquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 14 and except after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary: Provided further that no power to review shall be exercised by the Head of Department unless- (i) the authority which made the order in appeal, or (ii) the authority to which an appeal would lie, where no appeal has been preferred, is subordinate to him. Explanation I. The powers conferred on the Governor under this sub rule shall in the case of a Class III or Class IV Government servant serving in a District Court or a Court subordinate thereto be exercised by the Chief Justice. Explanation II. The powers conferred on the Governor under this rule shall, in the case of Judicial Officers be exercised by the High Court. (2) No proceeding for review 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. (3) An application for review shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under these rules.” 12.A careful perusal of Rule 29(1) of the Rules would show that review jurisdiction has been conferred to the Governor, the Head of a Department under the State Government and the appellate authority, and it has further been provided therein that power of review can be exercised by any other authority specified in this behalf by the Governor by a general or special order, and within such time as may be prescribed in such general or special order. It has also been stipulated that all the above-stated four reviewing authorities have the power to confirm, modify or set aside the order; or confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or remit the case to the authority which made the order to or any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or pass such other orders as it may deem fit. 13.As such, the power of review has been conferred to the aforesaid authorities and power has been given to them to confirm, modify or set aside the order; or to confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or to remit the case to the authority which made the order to or any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or to pass such other orders as it may deem fit. 14.However, sub-rule (2) of Rule 29 of the Rules would show that no proceeding for review shall be commenced until after the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal, or the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred. Sub- rule (3) of Rule 29 states that an application for review shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under these rules. Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 29 would show that power conferred under Rule 29 is akin to the power in the nature of appeal by the authority higher than the authority whose order is sought to be reviewed. By this Rule, no review jurisdiction has been conferred to the authority who has passed the order under review to review its own earlier order, as the power of review has to be exercised after the period of limitation prescribed for appeal and if appeal has been preferred, after the disposal of appeal. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 29 expressly made it clear that it would be considered as an appeal and in fact, it is review on merits. As such, in my considered opinion, Rule 29 excludes reviewing its own order by the authority concerned who has passed the order in question and therefore under Rule 29(1)(iii), appellate authority, in this case, means State Government, as against the order of the Commissioner, further appeal lies at the instance of the Government servant to the State Government. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 29(1)(iii), the appellate authority (Commissioner), who has passed appellate order under Rules 23 and 24, would not have the jurisdiction to hear and review its own order, as under Rule 29(1)(iii), it would be the State Government who will have the power of review by virtue of Rule 29(1)(iii). Therefore, by virtue of Rule 29(1)(iii), the appellate authority (Commissioner), who has passed appellate order under Rules 23 and 24, would not have the jurisdiction to hear and review its own order, as under Rule 29(1)(iii), it would be the State Government who will have the power of review by virtue of Rule 29(1)(iii). In other words, it is the power of review akin to appeal on merits, as the suo motu power has also been conferred to the State Government and other authorities mentioned therein as right to prefer appeal has been given to the Government servant by virtue of Rules 23 & 24 and express review power has been conferred to all the authorities i.e. the Governor or the Head of a Department under the State Government or the appellate authority or any other authority specified in this behalf by the Governor by a general or special order, so that the Government may have a check over the subordinate appellate authorities who have been conferred with the power of appeal under Rules 23 & 24. Thus, it is a power of review akin to the power of appeal on merits conferred to the authorities specified in clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 29 and it would not include the authority whose order is sought to be reviewed under Rule 24. The aforesaid view is supported by sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 29, where the power of review has to be exercised after the expiry of the period of limitation for an appeal or after the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred, and furthermore, the application for review has to be treated in the same manner as if it were an appeal under these rules. Thus, the power of review is akin to the power of appeal and therefore, it could not have been exercised by the appellate authority (Commissioner) exercising the power under Rule 29(1)(iii), as he would not be the appellate authority for the purpose of exercising review jurisdiction in the present case, because, in the instant case, the appellate authority is the State Government under Rule 24 for exercising review jurisdiction. However, this Court is not unoblivious of the fact that the appellate authority (Commissioner) may not have the power of review on merits under Rule 29(1)(iii), but, he would have power to correct clerical or arithmetical error in his order and also if the order is obtained by fraud or by misrepresentation. Furthermore, the Commissioner had already become functus officio after passing the order and its communication to the parties. 15.In that view of the matter, the learned Commissioner is absolutely unjustified in invoking the review power under Section 29(1)(iii) of the Rules, as such, the order dated 27-2- 2017 (Annexure P-1) is quashed as without jurisdiction and without authority of law. The petitioner is already in service by virtue of the interim order of this Court dated 11-5-2017, which is made absolute. 16.The question is answered accordingly and the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s). 17.This Court appreciates the assistance rendered by Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate, on short notice.