( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge (Prakash Narain, J.) as he then was dated February 28, 1975 by which he dismissed the petition and upheld the action for review started under Rule 29 of the Central Civil Services Rules (to be referred to hereinafter as CCS Rules ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner is a confirmed Upper Division Clerk in the Central Bureau of Investigation. He was issued two charge-sheets. One under Rule 14 of the CCS Rules, 1965 was issued on March 24, 1970. Another one was issued to him on January 25, 1971 under Rule 16.

( 3 ) IN the charge under Rule 16 the Disciplinary Authority awarded the penalty of censure . The petitioner has accepted it and that is not the subject-matter of challenge before us. However, in the other charge under Rule 14, enquiry was held. After the show-cause the matter was considered by the Deputy Director, C. B. I, who was the Disciplinary Authority. He passed order on December 31, 1971 and exonerated the petitioner in the enquiry which was held under Rule 14.

( 4 ) ON 31st July 1972, the Director, C. B. I, purporting to act under Rule 29 of the CCS Rules issued show-cause to the petitioner indicating that he was proposing to pass an order of removal from service and asking him to make representation. On receipt of this show-cause the petitioner moved this Court. By an interim order the Director was restrained from passing the final order. The writ petition was, however, later on dismissed as above and that is why the present appeal.

( 5 ) MR. Bala Krishnan sought to raise before us a number of points which had also been raised before the learned Single Judge. He had urged that there was no fresh material on the basis of which review could be considered by the Director C. B. I, and referred us to R. K. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Vol. 26 SLR 752. He also raised the point that the show-cause under Rule 29 was issued on July 31, 1972 and the same was beyond the period of six months from the order dated 31-12-1971 of exoneration passed by the Disciplinary Authority. These points have been found against the petitioner by the learned Single Judge. Counsel also sought to raise a point that even if it was permissible to initiate review no punishment could be imposed on the petitioner without first holding a denove and fresh enquiry and referred us to the first proviso to the Rule 29 and says that as it was proposed by the Director to impose a penalty of removal no such penalty could be imposed except after holding an enquiry in the manner laid down under Rule 14.

( 6 ) COUNSEL concedes that an enquiry was undoubtedly held earlier by the Disciplinary Authority. But says this is not sufficient and in case where an employee has been exonerated and the reviewing authority wishes to impose a penalty mentioned in Clause (v) to Clause (ix) of Rule 11 of the CCS Rules (Clause (viii) being for removal) it is incumbent as a condition precedent to again held a fresh enquiry under Rule 14. We do not propose to decide these matters in view of the decision that we propose to give on the question of maintainability of the power of review. We may note that counsel for the respondent has controverted the pleas of appellant on these points.

( 7 ) THE main argument of Mr. Bala Krishnan is by invoking second proviso to Rule 29, relevant of which reads as under : "provided further no power of review shall be exercised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, the Posts and Telegraphs Board or the head of department, as the case may be, 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. "

( 8 ) THE argument in short is that the petitioner s Disciplinary Authority was the Deputy Director, C. B. I. Appeal against his order would have lain to the Director, C. B. I. Hence, review could only be exercised by an authority which would not be subordinate to the appellate