JUDGMENT Gopi Nath, J. - This special appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 5-10-1972 dismissing a writ petition. The petition arose out of disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). An enquiry was held against the petitioner and he was found guilty of charges of gross neglect in the performance of his duty as an out-door Assistant Station Master of the Barauni Junction. A report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the punishing authority who proposed a punishment of removal against the petitioner and directed him to show cause. The petitioner challenged the enquiry proceedings and prayed for the quashing of the report of the Enquiry Officer as well as the notice of punishment. He further prayed for a writ of prohibition restraining the authorities concerned from acting in furtherance of the show cause notice. 2. The appellant was an employee of North Eastern Railway and was working as an outdoor Assistant Station Master at Barauni Junction on 4-12-1967. He was a non-gazetted class III Railway Servant in the grade of Rs. 335-425 p.m. A collision of 38 Down Passenger train occurred at the Junction on that date. An enquiry was held regarding the accident. The Enquiry Committee found that Sri S.N. Tripathi, Assistant Station Master in-door Barauni Junction was responsible for the accident. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Sri S.N. Tripathi for neglect in the discharge of duty. The Enquiry Committee consisted of Assistant Traffic Superintendent and a Junior Officer. During the course of this enquiry it was found that the responsibility for the collision lay on the petitioner who was the Assistant Station Master outdoor. A report was accordingly submitted that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against him and a recommendation was made that Sri S.N. Tripathi be discharged of the charge. 3. On receiving the report disciplinary proceedings were started by the Divisional Safety Officer, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow junction, against the petitioner. A memorandum was prepared embodying the charges (Annexure 1 to the petition). One Sri T.S. Mittar was appointed the Enquiring Officer and the enquiry was thereafter held. The appellant appeared before the enquiry officer denied the charges and placed his case before him. The Enquiring Officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority, holding the petitioner guilty of neglect of duty. One Sri T.S. Mittar was appointed the Enquiring Officer and the enquiry was thereafter held. The appellant appeared before the enquiry officer denied the charges and placed his case before him. The Enquiring Officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority, holding the petitioner guilty of neglect of duty. The General Manager, North Eastern Railway after considering the report of the Enquiring Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing a penalty of removal from service. The enquiry proceedings, the report of the Enquiring Officer and the show cause notice issued by the General Manager were sought to be quashed by means of the writ petition, on the ground that the Divisional Safety Officer had no authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner or to appoint an Enquiry Officer as he was not the Disciplinary Authority competent to impose a major penalty and the enquiry proceedings were in regard to the imposition of a major penalty under Rule 9 of the Rules. The enquiry proceedings were accordingly challenged as invalid, as also the show cause notice for the penalty of removal as it was based on those proceedings. 4. The learned Single Judge held the enquiry to be valid in view of sub-clause (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules. [After quoting Rule 8 the Court went on further]. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the special appeal. The only question canvassed before us was whether the enquiry proceedings initiated by the Divisional Safety Officer, who was not competent to impose a major penalty on the appellant was valid in law. The Question depends upon the interpretation of the relevant rules which are Rr. 2, 3, 4. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11. Rule 2, inter alia defines a disciplinary authority as well as railway servant. Rule 3 provides for the application of the Rules to the Railway servants. Rules 4 deals with the authorities competent to place a railway servant under suspension. Rule 6 deals with the penalties. Rule 7 deals with the disciplinary authorities competent to impose penalties specified in Rule 6. Rule 8 provides for the institution of disciplinary proceedings and the authorities competent in that behalf. Rule 9 deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties. Rule 6 deals with the penalties. Rule 7 deals with the disciplinary authorities competent to impose penalties specified in Rule 6. Rule 8 provides for the institution of disciplinary proceedings and the authorities competent in that behalf. Rule 9 deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties. Rule 11 deals with the procedure for imposing minor penalties - Rule 2(c) reads as follows: (c) Disciplinary authority means: (i) in relation to the imposition of a penalty on a railway servant, the authority competent under these rules to impose on him that penalty; (ii) in relation to rule 9 and clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 in the case of any gazetted railway servant an authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in rule 6; (iii) in relation to Rule 9 in the case of any non-gazetted railway servant, an authority competent to impose any of the major penalties specified in rule 6; (iv) in relation to clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 in the case of a non-gazetted railway servant, an authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 6." 5. It will be noticed that, under sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of Rule 2 it is provided that the disciplinary authority is that authority which is competent under these rules to impose a penalty. 6. Rules 4 and 7 deal with the disciplinary authorities specified in Schedules 1, 2 and 3. Schedule 1 details out the class of railway servants, the authorities empowered to place them under suspension and impose penalties. Schedules 2 and 3 are schedules of disciplinary powers of different grades of railway officers, in respect of non-gazetted and gazetted staff of the railway. In these schedules, the railway servants, both gazetted or non-gazetted and the authorities empowered to exercise disciplinary control over them are set out. It is necessary to set out the provisions of Rule 7 as they deal with the disciplinary authorities. Rule 7 states : "7. Disciplinary Authorities: (1) The President may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 on any railway servant: (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1). any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 may be imposed on railway servant by the authority specified in Schedules I, II and III. Rule 7 states : "7. Disciplinary Authorities: (1) The President may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 on any railway servant: (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-rule (1). any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 may be imposed on railway servant by the authority specified in Schedules I, II and III. (3) The disciplinary authority in the case of a railway servant officiating in a higher post, shall be determined with reference to the officiating post held by him at the time of taking action." 7. Rule 8 then provides that the President or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may institute disciplinary proceedings against any railway servant or direct the disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any railway servant. Rule 8 reads as follows:- "8. Authority to institute proceedings: (i) The President or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may- (a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any railway servant: (b) direct, a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any railway servant on whom that disciplinary authority is competent to impose under these Rules any of the penalties specified in Rule 6- (2) A disciplinary authority competent under these rules to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-rule (1) and clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 may, subject to the provisions of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2, institute disciplinary proceedings against any railway servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these Rules to impose any of the latter penalties." 8. Under Clause 1(b) of Rule 8 a disciplinary authority is empowered to institute disciplinary proceeding against any railway servant on whom that disciplinary authority is competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 6. Rule 6 specifies both, major as well as minor, penalties. A disciplinary authority would under clause 1(b) of Rule 8 be competent to institute disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalties also if he has been directed by the President or any other authority empowered by him to institute such proceedings. Rule 6 specifies both, major as well as minor, penalties. A disciplinary authority would under clause 1(b) of Rule 8 be competent to institute disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalties also if he has been directed by the President or any other authority empowered by him to institute such proceedings. There is thus a clear indication under this Rule for the institution of disciplinary proceedings for major penalties even by authorities competent only to impose minor penalties. Under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 this can be done only under a direction issued from the President or any other authority empowered in that behalf. Sub-rule (2) of 8 then makes provision for institution of such proceedings even without a direction from a higher authority as contemplated by sub-rule (1). An analysis of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 leads to the following conclusion in the institution of disciplinary proceedings of graver nature by authorities of inferior competence. (i) That the authority instituting the disciplinary proceedings must be a disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority mentioned in this sub-rule refers to the disciplinary authority under Rule 7. The president and the authorities specified in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 are the disciplinary authorities under Rule 7. Thus the disciplinary authority referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 means the disciplinary authority specified in Schedules 1, 2 and 3; (ii) that the disciplinary authority must be competent under the rules to impose any of the minor penalties specified in clauses (1) to (4) of sub-rule (1) and clauses (1) and (2) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6; (iii) that the competence to impose the minor penalties would be subject to the provisions of clause (c) of sub-rule (i) of Rule 2, which means that under the four sub-clauses of sub-rule (c) of Rule 2 the disciplinary authority is not rendered incompetent to impose the minor penalty referred to above. Clause (1) of sub-rule (c) refers to the competence of the authority under the rule to impose on the railway servant penalty. Schedule 1 specifies the authorities empowered to impose a penalty and the penalties which they can impose. There are officers under the schedule who are competent to impose all the minor penalties while there are others who can impose only some of them. Schedule 1 specifies the authorities empowered to impose a penalty and the penalties which they can impose. There are officers under the schedule who are competent to impose all the minor penalties while there are others who can impose only some of them. Sub-clause (1) of clause (c) of Rule 2, as occurring in Rule 8(2) has therefore, a reference to the authorities competent t.o impose penalties under the Schedule and has likewise a reference to Rules 4 and 7 of the rules. Sub-clause (2) of clause (c) of Rule 2 deals with gazetted railway servants. It stated that in relation to proceedings under Rule 9 and clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 any authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 is the disciplinary authority, i.e., an authority competent to impose any of the minor penalties under Rule 6 is a disciplinary authority in relation to a proceeding under Rule 9 in case of any gazetted railway servant. Sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of clause (c) of Rule 2 deal with non-gazetted railway servant. Sub-clause (iii) states that an authority competent to impose any of the major penalties under Rule 6 is a disciplinary authority in relation to a proceeding under Rule 9 Sub-clause (iv) then states that for the purpose of informing the railway servant of the proposal of taking action against him for the purposes of imposing minor penalties or for holding an enquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (19) of Rule 9 in respect of these penalties the disciplinary authority would be an authority competent to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 6 which means that for the purposes of imposing minor penalties, authorities competent to impose minor penalties, as well as major penalties are the disciplinary authorities of the railway servant concerned. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 may, for its true construction, be read as follows: A disciplinary authority competent under Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to impose any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-rule (1) and clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 may institute - disciplinary proceedings against any railway servant for the imposition of any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these rules to impose any of the latter penalties provided the disciplinary authority is competent under the rules to impose the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-rule (1) and clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6. 9. As observed earlier Schedules 1, 2 and 3 specify the authorities who are competent to impose any or all the minor penalties specified in Rule 6. There are some authorities who under the schedule are competent only to impose one or more of the several minor penalties, but not all. There are others who are competent to impose all the minor penalties specified under Rule 6. Section 8(2) contemplates that only those disciplinary authorities who are competent to impose all the minor penalties specified in Rule 6 are competent to institute disciplinary proceedings for the imposition of the major penalties. It is in this context that reference has been made to Rule 2(1)(c). Sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 states that disciplinary authority means the authority who in relation to the imposition of a penalty is competent to impose that penalty. The penalty contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 is any of the minor penalties specified in Rule 6. The disciplinary authority referred to in the sub-rule would thus be that authority who is competent under the rules to impose any of the minor penalties under Rule 6. The sub-rule has thus a reference to sub-clause (1) of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2; and only those authorities who are competent to impose all the minor penalties under Rule 6 are contemplated as disciplinary authorities competent to institute disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalties notwithstanding that such authorities are not competent to impose the major penalties. 10. 10. On this construction of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 effect can be given to all the matters mentioned therein and each part of it can be harmonised and no part would be rendered inconsistent with the object of the rule. Read in this light clause (b) of sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 can also be harmonised. Under Rule 8(1)(b) a disciplinary authority not competent to impose all the minor penalties under Rule 6 but competent only to impose one or more of such penalties, can, under a direction, either by the President or an authority empowered by him, institute disciplinary proceedings for the imposition of a major penalty while under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8, an authority competent to impose all the minor penalties, under Rule 6, can suo motu institute disciplinary proceedings for the imposition of any of the major penalties. 11. Object of sub-rule (2) being to enable disciplinary authorities, of lesser competence to institute proceedings for major penalties, the legislature seems to have guarded against institution of such proceedings by such junior officers who have very limited powers. 12. It has not been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the officer directing the enquiry was not competent to impose all the minor penalties mentioned in Rule 6. All that has been argued is that he could only impose minor penalties and as such was not a disciplinary authority competent to impose a major penalty in relation to a proceeding under Rule 9, Our attention was invited to sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2. As explained earlier the expression "subject to the provisions of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2" refers to sub-clause (1) of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 and not to sub-clause (iii). The true scope of sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 with reference to sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 has already been explained earlier. We thus find no infirmity in the enquiry proceedings. It is to be noticed that the appellant never raised any objection to the validity of the proceedings before the enquiry officer. He submitted to his jurisdiction and contested the case on merits. It is only at the stage of writ petition that an objection to the jurisdiction of the enquiry officer has been raised. It is to be noticed that the appellant never raised any objection to the validity of the proceedings before the enquiry officer. He submitted to his jurisdiction and contested the case on merits. It is only at the stage of writ petition that an objection to the jurisdiction of the enquiry officer has been raised. In view of the discussion made above the enquiry proceedings have not been rendered invalid by any error of jurisdiction. The proceedings are valid and can form the basis of the further proceedings for the imposition of the penalty proposed. The show cause notice for the proposed penalty is also not vitiated by any error of law or jurisdiction. In the circumstances neither a writ of certiorari nor a writ of prohibition can issue. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to certain decisions for the proposition that if the enquiry proceedings are bad in law further action cannot follow on the basis of the enquiry report. A reference may be made to Gouri Pr. Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, 1968 Lab IC 735 (Cal). To the similar effect are other authorities cited by the learned Counsel. These cases have no application to the instant case as we have held that the enquiry was validly conducted and the Enquiry Officer was fully competent to conduct the same. Learned Counsel further cited authorities for the proposition that if there is patent lack of jurisdiction in the proceedings under challenge, a writ of prohibition can issue. That principle also is not applicable to the instant case, as there was no error of jurisdiction involved in the enquiry proceedings and further there was no error of jurisdiction in the proceedings which followed it. In the circumstances we find no force in this appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.