The main legal point established is the requirement of fair, honest, and equitable exercise of power to enhance penalty and the need for notice and opportunity for the employee to respond to the proposal for major penalty.

1. This appeal is by the respondents in the Original Petition, they being the Senior Superintendent, R.M.S., Ernakulam Division, The Director of Postal Services, and the Senior Superintendent, R.M.S., Trivandrum Division, Trivandrum. The respondent herein was a Sorter in the Railway Mail Service, Trivandrum Division. Charges were, framed against him and disciplinary action was taken under R.16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). R.16 is to be invoked in a case where minor penalty is proposed those being the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of R.11 of the Rules. Where a major penalty falling within clauses (v) to (ix) of R.11 is proposed to be imposed, action is to be initiated under R.14. The petitioner having been told of proceedings in which minor penalty would be imposed submitted his representation. He prayed for an oral hearing. Perhaps because of that prayer R.16(1) (b) was invoked which required holding of an enquiry in the manner prescribed in sub-rules (3) to (23) and R.14. A minor penalty was imposed that being postponement of the increment. Thereupon the respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority without notice to the appellant passed an order enhancing the penalty. The minor penalty was altered into a major penalty, namely, one of reduction of salary. This was challenged by the petitioner. Ext. P-7 is the order passed by the disciplinary authority and Ext. P-10 is the order passed by the appellate authority.

2. The learned judge found no case for successful challenge to Ext. P-7 order. But in regard to Ext. P-10 it was held that it was vitiated for the reason that it was passed without holding an enquiry under R.14. It was also vitiated for the reason that the Rules of natural justice had been infringed. The consequence was that Ext. P-10 was quashed and Ext. P-7 was restored. That is challenged by the respondents in the Original Petition.

3. We are not called upon to consider the validity of Ext. P-7 as there is no challenge before us to the order of the learned Single Judge upholding Ext. P-7. Naturally the question is whether Ext. P-10 is liable to be vacated as has been done. The case of the appellants before us is that even though disciplinary proceedings were imitated proposing to impose a minor penalty by invoking R.16(1), by reason of R.16(1)(b) it is open to the disciplinary authority to direct holding of an enquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) and that having been done in this case the enquiry must be found to have been one under R.14. Consequently it is said that clause (ii) of the proviso to R.27(2) would operate to enable passing such orders as the appellate authority deemed fit to pass. R.16(1)(b) no doubt requires holding of an enquiry in accordance with sub-rules (3)to(23) of R.14wbere a disciplinary authority is of the opinion that this was to be done. The second clause of proviso to R.27(2) to which we have adverted is to the effect that if the enhanced penalty which the appellate authority proposes to impose is one of the major penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of R.11 the Appellate Authority is to hold an enquiry under R.14 or direct such enquiry to be made under R.14 if an enquiry under that Rule had not already been made in that case. Whether that had been done in this case by reason of invoking R.16(1) (b) is the question here.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-respondent contends that the proviso to R.27 contemplates a circumstance different from that arising in this case, a circumstance where R.14 has been invoked in the first instance pursuant to proceedings for imposing a major penalty but ultimately only a minor penalty has been imposed. In such a case naturally there is no scope for conducting a fresh enquiry under R.14. According to him the said clause of the proviso to R.27 should not be read so as to apply i