7.Moreover, it has to be seen that the original authority, who passed the order of severe warning had taken into consideration the circumstances of the case. While passing the order of severe warning, he had categorically held that there was no loss caused to the Corporation and on that account, a lenient view was taken. The second respondent who exercised the power of suo motu review has not spelt out any acceptable and valid reasons for taking a different view, that too, after a lapse of considerable time. Moreover, it has to be seen that the petitioner himself came to be promoted in June, 2010. That being the case, there is no justification for invoking the power of suo motu review after his promotion in 2010. Further, it has to be seen that the petitioner having been promoted to the higher post, the punishment of stoppage of increment cannot be given even otherwise since the charge was relating to the period when he was working in the lower post and therefore, it is not open to the second respondent to set the clock back after his promotion to the next higher post of Quality Inspector.
