The appellate authority has the jurisdiction to set aside a penalty and direct initiation of proceedings for a major penalty. The disciplinary authority, even if competent to impose a minor penalty, can frame charges for a major penalty.

1. The petitioner, a member of the Central Industrial Security Force, whose service conditions are governed by The Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, and The Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969, is the petitioner herein.

2. The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order in No.V-11014/CISF/Disc/Hq/appeal-61/99-2001 dated 8.4.2000 passed by the 3rd respondent confirming the final order No.V-15014/CISF/SCCL/)CP-II/99/3887 dated 4.10.99 passed by the 4th respondent and the memorandum No.V-15014/CPCL/Ms/Disc/2001/804 dated 26.3.2001 issued by the 5th respondent herein and quash the same.

3. Heard Mr.Mohd. Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.Jeyachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The 4th respondent framed a charge against the petitioner on 13.9.99. The gravemen of the charge being "FIRING PIN DUPLICATE FITTED U.A". The charge reads thus:-

"No.824580182 Constable M.Sekher formerly of OCP-II area and presently posted to CISF Unit SCCL, (B) SRP Area, was issued with 7.62 SLR Butt No.146 Regd. No.15312760 by the OCP-II Area for undergoing unit level course held at RKP Area on 13.4.99 for a period of four weeks. After completion of the course, he deposited the said SLR to OCP-II Kote and on inspection of the said SLR by the Const/Armourer P.Unnikrishnan of RKP Area given remarks in inspection report 'FIRING PIN DUPLICATE FITTED. U.A.". Thus Const. M.Sekher has replaced the firing pin of the said SLR with duplicate one without any authority/permission of the competent authority to suppress the fact, which amounts to gross misconduct, indiscipline and negligence on duties. Hence, the charge."

5. The petitioner denied the article of charge. The 4th respondent, not satisfied with the explanation submitted, awarded the punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect by final order dated 4.10.1999. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent, the appellate authority, set aside the said punishment award by the 4th respondent and ordered that the imputations of charge framed against the appellant on 13.9.99 being grave, be proceeded under Rule 34 after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself by means of a regular departmental enquiry. The 3rd respondent also recorded a finding that the appellant requested for production of documents and requested for an enquiry, which has been declined. That apart, the 3rd respondent also recorded a finding that the punishment awarded is inadequate and not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. Following the said order passed by the 3rd respondent, the 5th respondent issued articles of charge on 26.3.2001 under Rule 34 of The Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Rules.

6. Contending that the 5th respondent as well as respondents 3 and 4 have no jurisdiction and acted illegally, in violation of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of the statutory rules, the present writ petition has been filed. It is contended that the order of the 3rd respondent passed in the appeal is without jurisdiction. It is also contended that the disciplinary authority has chosen to impose a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment, while proceeding under Article 35, the appellate authority in the appeal preferred by the petitioner has neither the authority nor jurisdiction to set aside the said proceedings and directed initiation of proceedings for imposition of the major penalty under Rule 34. The impugned order is vitiated by non-application of mind by the appellate authority, besides being without jurisdiction.

7. Per contra, on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, a common counter affidavit has been filed by Group Commandant, CISF Group Head Quarters, Chennai. After referring to ea