The principal ground raised is that under Regulation 39 of the Regulations, the revision power can be exercised by an authority higher in rank than the appellate authority. Whereas in the present case, the first respondent-Divisional Manager is the appellate authority and as such the first respondent being the appellate authority cannot invoke the suo motu power under Regulation 30 of the Regulations. The conjoint reading of Regulations 29 and 30 of the Regulations leave no manner of doubt that the first respondent cannot invoke the revision power as it is only the Board under Regulation 30 of the Regulations, specified on its behalf the exercise of review of power can be undertaken. In the present case, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation on verification submits that there was no such authorisation which has been granted to the Divisional Manager to exercise the review power by the Board Resolution. As a matter of fact, this Court by an order dated 08.02.1993 in W.P.No.1136 of 1993 had already held that the Divisional Manager being the appellate authority cannot review the order on its own. In those circumstances, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. However, as it is submitted by the learned counsel for both the parties that the petitioner has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
