Somnath Ayyar, J.
1. In respect of six charges which were framed against the petitioner who was an inspector of schools in the Department of Education, disciplinary proceedings were commenced and those proceedings ended in the imposition of three penalties by the Director of Public Instruction who was the authority empowered to impose penalties. These punishments were imposed on 14 February, 1959.
2. On 6 January, 1960, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner from the office of the Mysore Government Secretariat calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the punishments imposed on him by the Director of Public Instruction should not be enhanced under rule 26 of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. This notice purports to have been issued by order and in the name of the Governor of Mysore by the Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Department of Education. The petitioner contends that the Government of Mysore has no power under rule 26 of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, to enhance the punishment imposed on him by the Director of Public Instruction, It is pointed out that it is under rule 27 that the Government could have made the enhancement if it had done so before the expiry of six months after the date on which the Director of Public Instruction imposed the punishment.
3. Now, while under rule 26 the Governor is empowered to enhance the punishment imposed on a civil servant, rule 27 empowers the authority to which an appeal lies against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 8 to review any order made in that case. But there is a proviso to that rule which prohibits such review after the expiry of six months after the date of the order to be reviewed.
4. It is not disputed that the authority to which an appeal lies from the order made by the Director of Public Instruction is the State Government. That being so, if the State Government wished to review the order made by the Director of Public Instruction, such review could have been made by it only under rule 27 and within the period referred to in the proviso to it and not under rule 26. But, since the impugned show-cause notice issued to the petitioner was issued after the expiry of that period, it is obvious that the proposed review of the State Government was not within its competence even under rule 27. That being so, even if it is possible to argue that the impugned notice was really issued by the State Government under rule 27, that argument cannot assist Mr. Government Pleader. But if it is possible to treat the impugned show-cause notice as one issued by the Governor under rule 26 as contended, the argument that the proposed review was properly commenced would be unanswerable.
5. But it is seen from the impugned notice that it was issued not by the Governor but by the Secretariat of the Mysore Government. The penultimate paragraph of that show-cause notice reads :
'After examining the records of the enquiry, the Government agrees with the enquiry officer that the charges are proved and you have thus rendered yourself liable for grave official misconduct. Considering the nature of the charges, namely, accepting illegal gratification and misusing the services of the peon and of the maid-servant, the punishment imposed is utterly inadequate. It is, therefore, proposed to review the case under rule 26 of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and enhance the penalty to one of dismissal from service.'
6. Although in this paragraph of the notice the reference is to rule 26 and not to rule 27, it is obvious that the review proposed was not a review by the Governor but by the State Government.
7. Although it is true, as contended by Mr. Government Pleader, that a Governor may exercise his power of review not only on his own motion but even otherwise, what should be clear in order that the show-cause notice might fall within rule 26, is, that the show-cause notice is a notice issued by the Governor in the exercise of his gubernatorial power, it being not enough that the notice is issued by the Government in the name of the Governor which of course has to be issued in that way having regard to the provisions of Art. 166 of the Constitution.
8. It is therefore manifest that the impugned show-cause notice in this case was not issued by the Governor in the exercise of his own power exercisable under rule 26, but is one issued by the Government which had no power to make a review under that rule. That being so, and since it was too late for the State Government to make a review even under rule 27, the proposed review was without lawful authority and beyond the competence of the State Government.
9. The impugned show-cause notice is accordingly quashed. There will be no order as to costs.