Reasonable time and proper notice limit revisional penalty action, with interference refused for delay and lack of legal basis.

Revisional proceedings must be commenced within a reasonable time even where no express limitation period applies, and an unexplained long delay can justify refusal to interfere. The revisional power is limited to correcting manifest error and is not a basis for reappreciating evidence. Penalty cannot be sustained on a charge that was not included in the show cause notice, and reliance on a retracted statement alone was treated as insufficient on the facts discussed. On that basis, the impugned order was left undisturbed and the respondent's exoneration was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision petition warranted interference in view of the unexplained delay and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction; and whether penalty could be sustained on a charge not covered by the show cause notice.

Analysis: The revision was filed long after the impugned order, with no explanation for the delay, and the Tribunal held that where no limitation is prescribed, proceedings must still be initiated within a reasonable time. It further held that revisional power is not meant for reappreciation of evidence and can be exercised only where there is a manifest error. On merits, the adjudicating authority had declined to impose penalty on the basis that the only material was a retracted statement, and although it had recorded a finding on contravention of one provision, penalty could not be imposed for that alleged violation because the show cause notice did not contain that charge.

Conclusion: No interference was called for. The revision petition was not maintainable on account of delay and lack of legal merit, and the respondent's exoneration was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenged order was left undisturbed, and the respondent succeeded.

---