JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J. During pendency of petitioner’s appeal against the penalty imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority, a show cause has been issued to him by the appellate authority as to why the penalty should not be enhanced. The said show cause notice has been impugned herein 2. Petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondent- corporation. On 21.10.2015, his services were regularized but on probation. In July 2019, he was confirmed in service. On 29.09.2023, a memorandum of charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) [CCS(CCA) in short] Rules, 1965. On the basis of report of the Inquiry Officer, the Regional Manager HRTC, Rampur Unit-Disciplinary Authority passed office order on 13.11.2024 (Annexure P-2) imposing penalty of stopping one increment with cumulative effect. 19 days later i.e. on 02.12.2024, the Appellate Authority/Divisional Manager HRTC Shimla Division issued a show cause notice (Annexure P-3) to the petitioner that it being the Reviewing Authority, intended to enhance the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and therefore he was given an opportunity to make representation on the enhanced penalty proposed by the Appellate Authority. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the show cause notice dated 02.12.2024 issued by the Divisional Manager HRTC. 3. Following order was passed in this petition on 12.12.2024:- “Notice. Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner’s grievance, as projected by the learned Senior Counsel, is that pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, a penalty was imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority on 13.11.2024, whereby petitioner’s one increment was stopped with cumulative effect, and the period of his suspension w.e.f. 15.09.2023 to 19.10.2023 (35 days) was not to be counted for pension and gratuity. 3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that before the petitioner could prefer appeal against the imposition of the aforesaid penalty, the Appellate Authority issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 02.12.2024, as to why the penalty imposed upon him should not be enhanced on the ground that the same was not commensurate with the gravity of the charges proved against the petitioner. 4. 4. Inviting attention to Rule 29(A) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, learned Senior Counsel submits that the Appellate Authority, could not have exercised power of review as there was no new material or evidence that was not produced or available at the time of passing the order imposing the penalty upon the petitioner. 5. Let the learned counsel for the respondents file/obtain reply/instructions by the next date of hearing. List on 26.12.2024. In the meanwhile, respondent though may proceed further with the show cause notice (Annexure P3), however, final decision thereupon shall not be taken without the leave of the Court.” Learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the facts pleaded by the petitioner, did not file reply but placed on record a letter dated 28.07.2023 from the respondent No.1 addressed to respondent No.2 justifying the issuance of impugned show cause notice as under:- “As you are aware, that a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has been formulated to deal with all the ticketless travelling cases, which had been detected by the checking officials. A number of ticketless travelling cases have been found ranging from Rs. 1 to Rs. 10,000/- in the recent past. The cases of embezzlement are to be dealt strictly without any partiality. For dealing such cases of embezzlement a yard stick has to be followed by the officer, but it has been found that the officers at unit level are neither maintaining the yard stick nor following the SOP adopted by the HRTC. Analysis has been done for the embezzlement cases in the corporation, and found that the penalty imposed was not commensurate with the embezzlement done. I therefore want you to go through the penalty imposed by Unit Officer and review the cases as per power vested in you under CCS/CCA rules, 1965 as review/appellate authority and to examine all cases of abezzlement & submit your report to undersigned within one month. The progress shall be reviewed in the meetings, scheduled for Divisions monthly working in coming weeks.” 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 5. Consideration 5(i) Penalty order passed by a Disciplinary Authority is appelable before the prescribed Appellate Authority. Rule 25 of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 provides the period of limitation of appeal as under:- “25. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 5. Consideration 5(i) Penalty order passed by a Disciplinary Authority is appelable before the prescribed Appellate Authority. Rule 25 of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 provides the period of limitation of appeal as under:- “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.” Thus the appeal against penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority can be preferred within a period of 45 days from the date of delivery of the copy of order. 5(ii) The disciplinary authority imposed penalty upon the petitioner on 13.11.2024. Petitioner had 45 days to appeal against the penalty order. Within the aforesaid period of 45 days available to the petitioner for filing appeal against the penalty order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 02.12.2024 i.e. after about 19 days from the imposition of penalty by the Disciplinary Authority. Under the impugned show cause notice, the appellate authority has called for petitioner’s response as to why the penalty imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority be not enhanced as the same was statedly not commensurate to the gravity of the charge. 5(iii) Part-VIII of the CCA(CCS) Rules 1965 contains provisions of Revision and Review. Rule 29 provides for Revision, as under:- “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules- (i) the President; or (ii)-(vi)……….. 5(iii) Part-VIII of the CCA(CCS) Rules 1965 contains provisions of Revision and Review. Rule 29 provides for Revision, as under:- “(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules- (i) the President; or (ii)-(vi)……….. 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:……….. (2) 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. (3) An application for revision shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it were an appeal under these rules.” As per Rule 29, the competent authority can confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or can even impose any penalty, where no penalty has been imposed, but Sub rule 2 of Rule 29 puts riders upon the exercise of this power inasmuch the proceedings for revision are not to commence until after expiry of period of limitation for the appeal, or the disposal of the appeal, where such appeal has been preferred. It is an admitted factual position that prescribed period of limitation for filing the appeal was not over on the date of issuance of show cause notice. The show cause notice, therefore, could not have been issued. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal & filed his appeal against the penalty order on 18.12.2024. The show cause notice, therefore, could not have been issued. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal & filed his appeal against the penalty order on 18.12.2024. That being the position, issuance of show cause for enhancing the penalty while the appeal against the penalty order was pending for adjudication, was a highly improper act of respondent No.2. 5(iv) At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that show cause notice had been issued in exercise of powers under Rule 29-A and not under Rule 29. That being the position, issuance of show cause for enhancing the penalty while the appeal against the penalty order was pending for adjudication, was a highly improper act of respondent No.2. 5(iv) At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that show cause notice had been issued in exercise of powers under Rule 29-A and not under Rule 29. Rule 29-A delineates powers of review and reads as under:- “The President may, at any time, either on his own motion or otherwise review any order passed under these rules, when any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review and which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, has come, or has been brought, to his notice: Provided that no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by the President unless the Government servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed or where it is proposed to impose any of the major penalties specified in rule 11 or to enhance the minor penalty imposed by the order sought to be reviewed to any of the major penalties and if an enquiry under rule 14 has not already been held in the case, no such penalty shall be imposed except after inquiring in the manner laid down in rule 14, subject to the provisions of rule 19, and except after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary and the Government servant has been given an opportunity of representing against the advice of the Commission within the time limit specified in clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of rule 15.” Bare reading of above rule makes it apparent that power of review can be exercised by the competent authority at any time, either on its own motion or competent authority can otherwise review any order passed under the rules, when any new material or evidence, which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing the order under review, which has the effect of changing the nature of the case, has come, or has been brought, to the notice of the competent authority. In the instant case, It is not the case of respondents that any new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing order under review had come to the notice of competent authority. In fact, present is a case, where the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has not yet become final. The time for filing appeal against the penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority had not even lapsed when show cause notice was issued by respondent No.2 for enhancing the penalty. Petitioner had already preferred statutory appeal against the penalty order. Possibility of his appeal being accepted cannot be ruled out. 5(v) Result Looking from any angle, there was no occasion for the appellate authority to have exercised power either Rule 29 or 29-A of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 for issuing the show cause notice to the petitioner for enhancing the penalty imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority. Rather issuance of show cause notice reflects prejudging of the matter by the appellate authority with a closed mind at a stage when petitioner’s appeal filed in accordance with law against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was yet pending adjudication before it. In view of above, the writ petition succeeds. Impugned show cause notice dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Divisional Manager HRTC-respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. The respondents to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.