Point of Law: Rightly observed by Tribunal, the above sub-Rule (1) of Rule 29 indicates 6 categories of revisional authorities. If we go further it shows that while no period is mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iv), sub-Clause (v) refers to a period of six months from the date of order proposed to be revised.

ORDER :

B. VEERAPPA, J.

The Union of India has filed the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 30.3.2015 passed in OA No.1566/2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (for short ‘Tribunal’) allowing the original application filed by the applicant/respondent herein and quashing the order dated 5.2.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority under Rule 29(1)(v) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short ‘Rules, 1965) revising the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 21/22.3.2013 holding that the order was passed beyond the period of six months stipulated under Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965, and also the applicant is entitled to consequential benefits pursuant to his compulsory retirement following the order of the Disciplinary Authority and is also entitled to admissible benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original application before the Tribunal.

3. Applicant filed Original Application No.1566/2013 to quash the memorandum impugned therein contending that he entered the services as Postman with effect from 17.3.1984 and thereafter he was promoted as Postal Assistant and rendered unblemished service all along, but while he was working at HAL II Stage, Head office, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a charge sheet against him and he was convicted vide judgment dated 31.8.2012. Against the said judgment, the applicant filed Crl.A No.1119/2012 before this Court. This Court by the order dated 4.10.2012 suspended the sentence and the matter is still pending. He was compulsorily retired w.e.f. 21/22.3.2013. After the cessation of master servant relationship, respondent No.3 vide memo dated 24.5.2013 proposed to enhance the punishment suomoto from compulsory retirement to dismissal from service by exercising the power under Rule 29 of Rules, 1965. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant made a representation on 10.6.2013 to stop the proposed action on various grounds. The said representation was not considered and ultimately the applicant came to be dismissed from service on 5.2.2014. An application before the Tribunal came to be amended (Annexure-A4). The Tribunal considering the entire material on record by the impugned order dated 30.3.2015 allowed the application and quashed the order dated 5.2.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

5. Sri Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioners – Central Government vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal setting aside the order dated 5.2.2014 revising the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 21/22.3.2013 is erroneous and contrary to the material on record and as such liable to be quashed. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the order passed by the Appellate Authority exercising the powers under Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965 within six months cannot be sustained. Admittedly, the order of conviction came to be passed by the Criminal Court against the applicant on 31.8.2012 and based on the order passed by the Criminal Court exercising the powers under Rule 19 of the Rules, 1965, the applicant came to be retired compulsorily w.e.f. 21/22.3.2013. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority thought fit that the penalty of compulsory retirement extending pensionary benefits to the accused by the department is not appropriate. Therefore, a notice came to be issued on 24.5.2013 and after enquiry, the applicant came to be dismissed from service on 5.2.2014. Admittedly, from the order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 21/22.3.2013, show cause notice was issued on 24.3.2013 within the time stipulated under Rule 29(1)(v) of the Rules, 1965. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in quashing the order passed by th