AHMED PATWARI Vs. REVENUE BOARDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a review application against my order dated 30-6 65, whereby I had partly accepted the appeal of the applicant against the order of the Collector, Ajmer dated 24. 10. 1964 and had directed that the penalty of censure will be imposed upon the Patwari, petitioner. For the period of suspension, I had directed that he would be entitled to the amount of subsistence already drawn. The Patwari has now come up in a review petition praying that the said order may be reviewed on the ground that the punishment of censure does not justify the payment of subsistence allowance only. The Patwari was given an opportunity of being heard in person. He has failed to show any provision of law under which the order in appeal can be reviewed.

(2.) MY attention has been drawn to Rule 32 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. Under this rule, the authority to which an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 14 lies may, if no appeal has been preferred therefrom, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of the case in disciplinary proceeding held by an authority subordinate to it and after making further investigations if necessary, revise an order passed in such a case and pass such order as it may deem fit subject to certain provisions specified therein. The present application obviously does not fall within the purview of rule 32 and I, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting this review petition as not maintainable. .