Item No.12. DJ/- SBCWP NO. 7190/2010 Inayat Ali Khan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Order dt: 04th August, 2010 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7190/2010 Inayat Ali Khan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. DATE OF ORDER ::: 04th August, 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. R.S. Choudhary, for the petitioner. --- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 04.05.2010 (Annex-10) by which the authority concerned while exercising powers under Section 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1958') has remanded the case back to the appellate authority with a direction to give notice to applicant- delinquent official (petitioner herein) as to why punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority may not be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such a direction could not have been given by the said authority while remanding the matter back to the authority concerned. 4. A bare perusal of Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958 would indicate that this power is fully vested in the concerned authority who exercised said power under Rule 34, namely, vide Clause (c), to remit Item No.12. DJ/- SBCWP NO. 7190/2010 Inayat Ali Khan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Order dt: 04th August, 2010 2/3 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. For ready reference, the Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958 is reproduced hereunder: Rule-34: Governor's powers 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after calling for the records of the case, review any order which is made or appealable under these rules or the rules repealed by rule 35 and, after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary: - (a) confirm, modify or set aside, the orders; (b) impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order; (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order to any other authority directing such further action or inquiry as he considers proper in the circumstances of the case; or (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 Item No.12. DJ/- SBCWP NO. 7190/2010 Inayat Ali Khan Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Order dt: 04th August, 2010 3/3 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. 5. In view of this specific provision permitting the authority concerned to remit/remand the matter back to the authority concerned with appropriate direction, the impugned order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Secondly, as far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter was remanded back after three years of the impugned order, also does render the said order illegal in any manner. The order against which the said authority passed the order was made only on 24.11.2006 by which the appellate authority held the order dated 27.06.2005 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, the impugned order passed on 04.05.2010 cannot be said to be time barred. No such time limit has been prescribed under Rule 34 of the Rules of 1958. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to proviso (iii) of the Rule 34, 'no action under this rule shall be initiated more than three years after the date of order to be reviewed' is misconceived because the said time limit is only for initiation of proceedings under Rule 34 but there is no limitation for passing of said order. 6. The writ petition being devoid of merit fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Copy of this order be sent to the respondents immediately. (DR. VINEET KOTHARI), J. DJ/- 12