ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :

“… direction in the nature of the Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records relating to and connected with the order dated 12.09.2005 rendered in O.A.No.1184 of 2002 on the file of Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and quash the same as it is contrary to law and pass such other order or orders.”

2. No representation on behalf of the petitioners. We have heard Sri Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent resulted in imposing punishment of reduction to lower grade as ticket collector operative for a period of 12 months. Aggrieved by the order of disciplinary authority dated 17.03.1999, the respondent did not avail the remedy of appeal and therefore, in so faras he was concerned the order has become final. That being so, the Additional Divisional Railway Manager issued notice dated 17.09.1999 exercising suo-moto power of Revision and called for explanation of the respondent why the punishment of dismissal should not be imposed. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent, by order dated 23.10.1999, he passed order of dismissal from service. The appeal preferred by the respondent was rejected by order dated 12.06.2000 and the General Manager by his order dated 22.09.2000 rejected the application filed by him treating it as a Mercy petition, but not as a Revision. Challenging the order of dismissal from service as confirmed by the higher authorities, the respondent filed O.A.No.1747 of 2000. The Tribunal having noticed that the Revisional power was not exercised within six months as prescribed in Rule 25 (5), [25. Revision -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules -

(i) the President, or

(ii) the Railway Board, or

(iii) the General Manager of a Railway Administration or an authority of that status in the case of a Railway servant serving under his control, or

(iv) the appellate authority not below the rank of a Divisional Railway Manager in cases where no appeal has been preferred, or

(v) any other authority not below the rank of Deputy Head of Department in the case of a Railway servant serving under his control -

may at any time, either on his or its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules or under the rules repealed by Rule 29, after consultation with the Commission, where such consultation is necessary, and may –

(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or

(b) confirm, reduce, enhance or set aside the penalty imposed by the order, or impose any penalty where no penalty has been imposed; or

(c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or

(d) pass such orders as it may deem fit:

Provided that-

(a) noorder imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revising authority unless the Railway servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed;

(b) subject to the provisions of Rule 14, where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 6 or the penalty specified in clause (iv) of Rule 6 which falls within the scope of the provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order under revision to any of the penalties specified in this sub-clause, no such penalty shall be imposed except after following the procedure for inquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 9, unless such inquiry has already been held, and also except after consultation with the Commission, where such consultation is necessary.

(5) : Noaction under this rule shall be initiated by :

(a) an appellate authority other than the President; or

(b) the revising authorities mentioned