Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

2. The present writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for setting aside the notification dated 30.11.2015 wherein the Governor of Mizoram has been pleased to specify the competent authorities who are to exercise powers in relation to imposition of penalties upon a Government Servant. This writ petition has been filed due to the non-implementation of the Judgment and Order dated 1.7.2015 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 90/2015.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Mizoram Civil Service Officer and that while he was posted as Block Development Officer of Bungtlang South, certain allegations regarding misappropriation of money was made against the petitioner. A departmental Inquiry was drawn up against the petitioner and he was imposed with major penalty of "reduction to the lower time pay of scale, grade pay of Rs. 5400/- p.m. for a period of 3(three) years without effecting seniority and without having the effect of postponing future increments of pay.

4. The petitioner being aggrieved with the imposition of the major penalty mentioned above filed Revision Petition dated 7.1.2015 to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram.

5. The Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, DP & AR (CSW) wrote a letter dated 10.3.2015 in reply to the petitioner's revision petition, which is as follows:-

"In referring to your revision petition captioned above, I am directed to inform you with regret that, since no new fact or material that may have the effect of changing the nature of the case has arisen, there is no further provision for revision/review against a penalty order made by and in the name of the Governor.

Therefore, the major penalty of 'reduction to the lower time scale of pay, Grade pay of Rs.5400/- p.m. for a period of 3 years without effecting seniority and without having the effect of postponing future increments of pay' awarded to you vide Order No. C.14011/33/2010-P&AR(CSW) dated 10.12.2014 & 11.02.2015 shall stand."

6. The petitioner's counsel submits that as per the notification dated 27.5.2013 issued by the State Government and the Schedule appended thereto, the competent authority to consider the petitioner's revision petition dated 7.1.2015 in relation to disciplinary matters as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Revision Authority is the Governor.

7. The petitioner thereafter filed WP(C) No. 90/2015, wherein the petitioner prayed that the impugned letter dated 10.3.2015 should be set aside and the revision petition submitted by the petitioner should be considered by the Governor in view of the notification dated 27.5.2013 and the Schedule appended thereto. The relevant extract of the Schedule appended to the notification dated 27.5.2013 is as follows:-

8. This Court on considering the matter observed that.

"8. Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 states that the appeal/revision/review has to be filed within 6 (six) months from the date of the Order of penalty. In the present case the petitioner has submitted his revision petition within the 6(six) months period provided by Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

9. The revision petition dated 7.1.2015 submitted by the petitioner has been wrongly addressed to the Chief Secretary and it should have been addressed to the Governor. This mistake on the part of the