WP(C) 5860/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M. R. Pathak, le arned Govt. Advocate, Tripura and Mr. S. S. Dey, learned Standing Counsel, Gauha ti High Court. The writ petitioner who is a Judicial Officer has been removed from service by a n order dated 22.3.2006 on completion of a disciplinary proceeding held against him. The petitioner filed an appeal/review application against the order dated 2 2.3.2006 which has been rejected by order dated 14th February, 2007. The removal from service of the petitioner made by order dated 22.3.2006 and the rejection of his appeal made by order dated 14.2.2007 has been assailed in this writ peti tion. No counter has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents nor any records ha ve been placed before us at the hearing either by the learned Govt. Advocate or by the learned Standing Counsel of the High Court. Though an attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to per suade the Court to look into and decide on the validity of the order of punishme nt dated 22.3.2006 we are of the view that in view of the second grievance raise d in the writ petition i.e. with regard to the disposal of appeal/review petitio n of the petitioner it would not be correct on our part to decide on the validit y of the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner, at this stage. Instead, we are of the view that it would be more appropriate for us to consider the seco nd grievance raised in the writ petition i.e. that the appeal/review petition f iled by the petitioner has not been disposed of in accordance with law. The applicability of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and App eal) Rules to disciplinary proceedings involving Officers under the Tripura Judi cial Service is not in dispute. Under Rules 23 and 24 of the aforesaid Rules aga inst an order imposing a major penalty an appeal is provided to the concerned ap pellate authority. In the present case the order of punishment has been passed i n the name of the Governor of the State who is the appointing authority under th e Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003 (for Grade-I and Grade-III). The appeal, therefore, in the present case will lie to the Governor notwithstanding the fact that it is the said authority who had passed the initial order of punishment. T he above follows from a decision of this Court in The Gauhati High Court, repres ented by the Registrar (Judicial) of the Gauhati High Court, Guwahati vs. The St ate of Assam and others, .reported in (1992) 1 GLR 450. In the aforesaid case a part from laying down the law to the above effect the Division Bench of this Cou rt had also clearly held in para 21 of the judgment that the Governor while exer cising its powers in considering the appeal/review has to be guided by the recom mendations of the High Court which is to be made afresh on the appeal petition f iled by an aggrieved Judicial Officer. In para 14 of the writ petition there is a clear averment that the appeal/review petition filed by the writ petitioner on 26.10.2006 has been decided by the Hon ’ble Governor by the order dated 14.2.2007. It has been stated that the said ord er has been passed without referring the matter to the High Court for its recomm endations. The aforesaid statements made in para 14 of the writ petition have no t been controverted by the respondents. In the above circumstances, proceeding on the basis of the statements made in pa ra 14 of the writ petition we are of the view that the order dated 14.2.2007 has been passed contrary to the law laid down by this Court in The Gauhati High Cou rt, represented by the Registrar (Judicial) of the Gauhati High Court, Guwahati vs. The State of Assam and others (supra). Accordingly, we held the said order t o be legally infirm and deem it appropriate to interfere with the same. The appe al/review petition filed by the petitioner will now be considered as an appeal u nder Rule 23 of the CCS Rules and the concerned authority will decide the matter expeditiously and in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in The Gau hati High Court, represented by the Registrar (Judicial) of the Gauhati High Cou rt, Guwahati vs. The State of Assam and others (supra). The writ petition, consequently, stands allowed to the extent indicated above.