Judgment :- 1. The respondents in the writ petition, the state of Kerala and the Additional Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, are the appellants and the petitioner, who was the Commandant, SAP., the respondent. The State Government, the first appellant, started an inquiry against the respondent under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and appointed the second appellant as Tribunal (Inquiry Authority) to hold the inquiry. Originally, another officer was appointed Inquiry Authority; and the second appellant was appointed only subsequently). The Tribunal (the first officer) issued summonses to some witnesses to appear but the witnesses failed to appear. Then the Tribunal pointed put this difficulty (that he had, no power to compel the appearance of witnesses) to the State Government; and the State Government passed Ext. P2, the impugned order the relevant portion of which read "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of S.9 of the Kerala Enquiries and Summonses Act, 1960 (Act 24 of 1960) as amended by the Kerala Enquiries and Summonses (Amendment) Act,1962 the Government of Kerala hereby invest Sri. P. A. Quadir Miran. Additional Tribunal (Tribunal No. II) for Disciplinary Proceedings, Trichur with the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of matters referred to in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the said sub section." The respondent questioned the validity of Ex. P2; and a learned judge of this Court, agreeing with the objection of the respondent, quashed Ex. P2. In appeal the said decision of the Single Judge is being challenged: the decision of the Single Judge is reported as P. J. Alexander v. State of Kerala (1971 KLT. 749). 2. We do not propose to go into details in this case. Both parties agree that the inquiry is held under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1969. Both parties also agree that, under the said Rules, the Tribunal had no power, which a civil court had, under the Code of Civil Procedure. Both parties further agree that it was this lacuna that was sought to be filled up by Ex. P2. 3. The All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules are framed under S.3 of the All India Services Act. Both parties further agree that it was this lacuna that was sought to be filled up by Ex. P2. 3. The All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules are framed under S.3 of the All India Services Act. S.3 (i) of the said Act reads: "The Central Government may, after consultation with the Governments of the States concerned (including the State of Jammu and Kashmir), make rules for the regulation of recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to an All India Service". 4. It is conceded by the Government Pleader (it has to be conceded too) that the All India Services Rules cannot be varied or modified by any State Government: such modification or variation can be effected only by the Central Government in consultation with the State Governments as contemplated by S.3 of the Act. But, the argument of the Government Pleader is that Ex. P2 has not varied or altered any of the provisions of the All India Services Rules, but has only enabled the Tribunal, the second appellant, to function more effectively as contemplated by the All India Services Rules: in other words, the argument is that the Tribunal is merely empowered to function under the All India Services Rules. We must observe that the State Government has no power to empower the Tribunal appointed to function under the Rules: the power of the State Government is only to appoint a Tribunal: and all the powers the Tribunal derives are from the all India Services Rules. Therefore, we need not consider whether under the Rules the Tribunal has the powers sought to be conferred by Ex. P2 too: if the Tribunal has such powers, he can exercise them: and in that event, Ex. P2 is unnecessary: in any event, Ex. P2 cannot add to the powers of the Tribunal or confer any power on him which he did not have under the All India Services Rules. If the Tribunal has no such powers (it is conceded more or less that it was because the Tribunal had no such powers that Ex. P2 was passed), then certainly the State Government has no power to pass an order like Ex. P2 conferring additional powers on the Tribunal. It may also be noted that Ex. If the Tribunal has no such powers (it is conceded more or less that it was because the Tribunal had no such powers that Ex. P2 was passed), then certainly the State Government has no power to pass an order like Ex. P2 conferring additional powers on the Tribunal. It may also be noted that Ex. P2 was passed under S.9 of the Kerala Enquiries and Summonses Act of 1960 as amended by Amendment Act of 1962, which applied only to inquiries against State Officers and not against All India Services Officers. Therefore, by taking power under the said Act, no power can be conferred on a Tribunal functioning under the All India Services Rules. 5. The Government Pleader has, in the course of his arguments, pointed out that the reasoning of the Single Judge in Para.7 of his judgment may suggest that the passing of Ex. P2 was legislation, which is not correct. May not be: but that reasoning is not necessary to sustain the conclusion of the learned judge. 6. On this short ground, we uphold the conclusion of the Single Judge and dismiss the appeal. However, we do not pass any order regarding costs.