JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - There are two petitioners in this petition; viz Sher Bahadur Singh and India Dee Ojha. The petitioners were appointed as watchmen in the Watch and Ward Department of the East Indian Railways, Subsequently, on the enforcement of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, they were appointed to the Railway Protection Force. This was done by means of a ratification issued in the Gazette of India dated September 10, 1959. This notification was issued tinder the Authority of the Central Government which framed the Railway Protections Force Rifles, 1959, Cl. (3) of the Gazette Notification provided for the initial appointments to the force. It nuns as follows: Appointment to the force:- The superior officers and members of the Railway Protection Force who, at the commencement of the Act, were holding the posts specified in column I of the table below are hereby appointed to the posts specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of the said table in the Railway Protection Force constituted under Section 3 of the Act. Existing post in the Railway Protection Force Corresponding post under Railway Protection Force Act. 1 2 Inspector General Inspector General. Chief Security officer. Chief Security officer. Chief Security officer. Chief Security officer. Assistant Chief Security officer. Assistant Chief Security officer. Inspector. Inspector. Sub-Inspector. Sub-Inspector. Subedar. Subedar. Havildar. Havildar. Naik/Seal Checker. Senior Rakshak. Sainik. Rakshak. and each will be the immediate superior in rank to the one mentioned next below. 2. Petitioner No. 1 was selected for appointment as an Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1968 and was promoted as such by an order No. 11 dated 5-4-1968 with effect from 20-4-1968. Petitioner No. 2 was confirmed as a Havildar in the Railway Protection Force by an order dated 29-9-1957 with effect from 10-7-1956 and he was selected for appointment as an Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1964. The order for promotion of petitioner No. 2 as an Assistant Sub Inspector was issued on 11-2-1964. 3. It appears that on 20-7-1970 two persons were arrested with stolen property. In that connection the authorities received some complaints against the petitioners, Mr. Khurana the Circle Inspector, Northern Railway Kanpur was appointed to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the matter. He conducted this inquiry and thereafter submitted a report. On the basis of the said report the Assistant Security Officer, Allahabad suspended the petitioners. In that connection the authorities received some complaints against the petitioners, Mr. Khurana the Circle Inspector, Northern Railway Kanpur was appointed to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the matter. He conducted this inquiry and thereafter submitted a report. On the basis of the said report the Assistant Security Officer, Allahabad suspended the petitioners. According to the counter affidavit filed by Sri Har Bilas Rai on behalf of the respondents the Assistant Security Officer was competent to issue a charge sheet to the petitioners who were Assistant Sub Inspectors tinder R. 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, but he was not competent to impose it penalty and, hence, the Assistant Security Officer has issued a charge sheet under R. 44 of the said Riles. Later, the Security Officer appointed the Assistant Security Officer as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry also. The order of the Assistant Security Officer about the appointment of the Assistant Security Officer as the Enquiry Officer was given on 20th September. 1972. and a copy was issued to each of the petitioners. The charge sheets to the petitioners were issued on 25-8-1970. 4. Rule 44 of the Railway Protection Force Rules provides for the procedure for the imposition of major penalties. Rule 44 is reproduced below: "44. Procedure for imposing major penalties- (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiry) Act, 1850, no order imposing on a member of the Force any of the penalties specified in clauses (a) to (d) of R. 41 shall be passed except after an enquiry held as far as may be in the manner hereinafter provided. (2) The Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held, such charges together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the member of the Force and he shall be required to subunit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. Explanation- In this sub rule and in sub rule (3), the expression "the Disciplinary Authority" shall include the authority competent tinder these rules to impose upon the member of the Force any of the penalties specified in cls. (e) to (h) of R. 41. Explanation- In this sub rule and in sub rule (3), the expression "the Disciplinary Authority" shall include the authority competent tinder these rules to impose upon the member of the Force any of the penalties specified in cls. (e) to (h) of R. 41. (3) The member of the. Force shall, for the purpose of preparing his defence be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he. may specify, provided that such permission may be refused if, for reasons to be recorded in writing in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority, such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the public interest to allow him access thereto. (4) On receipt of the written statement of defence, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, the Disciplinary Authority may itself enquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a superior officer or an officer not lower in rank than an Inspector or a Board of Inquiry as the Inquiring Authority to conduct the inquiry. (5) The member so charged may be permitted by the Inquiring Authority to present is case with the assistance of any other member of the Force approved by it. (6) The Inquiring Author, shall, in the course of the inquiry. consider such documentary evidence and take such oral evidence as may be relevant or material in regard to the charges. The member of the Force shall be entitled to cross examine witnesses examined in support of the charges, to give evidence in person, and to produce defence witnesses. If the Inquiring Authority declines to examine any witness on the ground that his evidence is not relevant or material, it shall record its reasons in writing. (7) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority shall prepare a report of the Inquiry, recording its findings on each of the charges together with reasons therefor. If in the opinion of such authority, the proceedings of the inquiry establish charges different from those originally framed, it may record its findings on such charges, provided that findings on such charges shall not be recorded unless the member so charged has admitted the facts constituting them or has had an opportunity of defending himself against them. If in the opinion of such authority, the proceedings of the inquiry establish charges different from those originally framed, it may record its findings on such charges, provided that findings on such charges shall not be recorded unless the member so charged has admitted the facts constituting them or has had an opportunity of defending himself against them. (8) The record of the inquiry shall include: (i) the charges framed against the member of the Force and the statement of allegations furnished to him tinder sub r. (2); (ii) his watter statement of defence if any; (iii) the oral evidence taken in the course of the inquiry; (iv) the documentary evidence considered in the course of the inquiry; (v) the orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiring Authority in regard to the inquiry; and (vi) a report setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefor. (9) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge. (10) (1) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to :ts findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in cls. (e) to (h) of R. 11 should be imposed, it shall pass appropriate orders in the case; (2) If it is of opinion that any of the penalties specified in cls. (a) to (d) of R. 41 should he imposed. it shall (a) furnish the member so charged with a copy of the report of the inquiring Authority and, where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority. (h) give him a notice stating the action proposed to he taken in regard to him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed action; and (c) consider the representation, if any. made by the member so charged in response to the notice tinder cl. (b) and determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on the member so charged, and pass appropriate orders on the case. made by the member so charged in response to the notice tinder cl. (b) and determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on the member so charged, and pass appropriate orders on the case. (D) Orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority shall be communicated to the member of the Force who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and where the Disciplinary Authority is not the inquiring Authority, a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, along with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, wetness they have already been supplied to him." 5. It will be seen that under R, 44 (2) it is for the Disciplinary Authority to frame charges. "the explanation to sub r. (2) provides that the expression 'Disciplinary Authority, shall include the authority competent tinder these rules to impose upon the member of the force any of the penalties specified in cls. (e) to (h) of R. 41. which are minor penalties. It will thus be apparent that the Assistant Security Officer would be a competent Disciplinary Authority to issue a charge sheet to the petitioners. 6. The Assistant Security Officer who conducted the departmental proceedings came to the conclusion that the charges were not proved. He forwarded his findings to the Disciplinary Authority who was the Security Officer. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiring Officer. He recorded a memorandum of dissent and issued a notice asking the petitioners to show cause why they should not be compulsorily retired. The report of the Inquiring Officer along with the memorandum of dissent and the show cause notice was served on the petitioners. The petitioners submitted a reply to the show cause notice. After considering the reply of the petitioners the Security Officer has passed an order compulsorily retiring the petitioners from service. 7. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Security Officer compulsorily retiring them from service and have filed the instant writ petition, The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are as follows: 1. The Inquiring Officer was competent to pass the final orders himself and, as such, he erred in submitting his inquiry report to the Security Officer. According to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners the Inquiring Officer having found that the charges against the petitioners were not established. The Inquiring Officer was competent to pass the final orders himself and, as such, he erred in submitting his inquiry report to the Security Officer. According to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners the Inquiring Officer having found that the charges against the petitioners were not established. should have dropped the proceedings. 2. There was no material on the record on the basis of which the Security Officer could pass an order compulsorily retiring the petitioners. In other words, the evidence on record does not justify a finding that the petitioners were guilty of the charges framed against them. 3. The petitioners were appointed to the posts which they were holding when action was taken against them by the Chief Security Officer, and as such, the Security Officer, Allahabad was not competent to impose a penalty of compulsory retirement against the petitioners. 8. As regards the first submission. it has been seen above that the Assistant Security Officer was competent to issue a charge sheet to the petitioners who were Assistant Sub Inspectors. Schedule II to the Railway Protection Force Rules provides that the Assistant Security Officer shall be the Disciplinary Authority for members of the Force of and below the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector to which rank the petitioners belong. R. 43 provides as follows: The disciplinary authority in respect of a member of the force for the purpose of imposing any particular penalty or the passing of any disciplinary order shall be the authority specified in this behalf in Schedule II in whose administrative control the member is serving and shall include any authority superior to such authority." Thus, both the Assistant Security Officer and the Security Officer, Allahabad were disciplinary authorities for the petitioners. The Seenrity Officer issued an order on 20-10-1970 appointing the Assistant Security Officer as the Inquiring Officer into the charges framed against the petitioner; as the Assistant Security Officer had been directed to conduct an inquiry, he was bound to report to the Security Officer with his findings. He was not competent to dispose of the matter on his finding that the charges were not proved. lie had to submit his findings to the Security Officer who had taken control of the proceedings, Thus the argument on behalf of the petitioners in this regard fails and cannot be accepted. 9. He was not competent to dispose of the matter on his finding that the charges were not proved. lie had to submit his findings to the Security Officer who had taken control of the proceedings, Thus the argument on behalf of the petitioners in this regard fails and cannot be accepted. 9. We have been taken through the record by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his plea that there was no material on the record on which a finding adverse to the petitioners could be recorded by the Security Officer. There is sufficient material on the record on the basis of which a finding of guilty could be recorded. This Court does not sit as a Court of appeal against the orders of administrative authorities. It can only see whether there is any material on the record on the basis of which a finding of guilty could be reached. This Court is unable to hold that there is no material on the record on which a finding against the petitioners could not be recorded. Of course, the appellate authority could have come to a different conclusion. In fact, the Inquiring Officer had come to a conclusion that the charges against the petitioners were not established while the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that the charges were established. This writ petition cannot he allowed on the ground that there is no material on the record on the basis of which the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, viz., the Security Officer, could have been reached. 10. It is then submitted that the petitioners had been appointed to the Railway Protection Force by an order of the Railway Board published in the Gazette dated 10th September, T959, by virtue of Cl. (3) of the said order. Under Cl, 3 of the said piles the petitioners had become Head Rakshaks under the said rules and were subsequently promoted by different orders, as Assistant Sub Inspectors. 11. In the case of petitioner Sher Bahadur Singh, a panel of names for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspectors was framed and submitted to the Chief Security Officer for approval. The Chief Security Officer approved of the same on 29-3-1968. This order is filed as annexure A to the Supplementary commuter affidavit. 11. In the case of petitioner Sher Bahadur Singh, a panel of names for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspectors was framed and submitted to the Chief Security Officer for approval. The Chief Security Officer approved of the same on 29-3-1968. This order is filed as annexure A to the Supplementary commuter affidavit. Subsequently, orders for his promotion were issued by Sri G. N. Purohit, Security Officer (West) on 29-3-1968 (Annexure Al to the supplementary counter affidavit). The mere fact that a superior officer has approved of the panel selected for promotion does not make him the appointing authority for a particular officer unless the actual order of promotion has been issued by a subordinate authority. In this connection Katnta Charan Srivastava v. Post Master General Bihar ( AIR 1955 Pat 381 ), Gangadhar Pandey v. Union of India ( AIR 1964 Pat 102 ), Milkha Singh Bhandu Singh v. Union of India (AIR 1966 Punj 297) and (1975) 2 Serv LR 226:(1975 Lab IC 813 (SC) justify the above view. 12. As far as petitioner Indra Deo Ojha is concerned, he was selected for appointment as Assistant Sub Inspector tinder an order of the Chief Security Officer dated 1-2-1964. Below the order containing the list of selected candidates in another order which is as follows:- "Posting orders to be issued at once. It should be personally done." Sd/- Illegible." 2/2 13. 13. The original record was produced be fore this Court and it became absolutely clear that both the orders selecting and directing that posting orders should be issued were signed by the same authority; viz. the Chief Security Officer. Subsequently, another paper has been filed as annexure B2 to the supplementary counter affidavit which states that the persons specified in the order including the petitioner have been declared suitable for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspectors. It is signed by Sri I. M. Mahajan, for the Chief Security Officer. The position, therefore, as far as petitioner I. D. Ojha is concerned is that he was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector under an order of the Chief .Security Officer; while the order of compulsory retirement has been passed by the Security Officer who is subordinate in rank to the Chief Security Officer. The position, therefore, as far as petitioner I. D. Ojha is concerned is that he was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector under an order of the Chief .Security Officer; while the order of compulsory retirement has been passed by the Security Officer who is subordinate in rank to the Chief Security Officer. Under Section 9(1) of the Railway Protection Force Act it is provided as follows: "9(1) Subject to the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution and to such rules as the Central Government may make under this Act, any superior officer may (i) dismiss, suspend or reduce in rank any member of the Force whom he shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same; or (ii) award any one or more of the following punishments to any member of the force who discharges his duty in a careless or negligent manner, or who by any act of his own renders himself unfit for the discharge thereof. namely: (a) fine to any amount not exceeding seven days' pay or reduction in pay scale; (b) confinement to quarters for a period not exceeding fourteen days with or without punishment drill. extra guard, fatigue or other duty; (c) removal from any office of distinction or deprivation of any special emolument." It is obvious that in view of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution Sri Indra Deo Ojha having een appointed by the Chief Security Officer as an Assistant Sub Inspector, the Security Officer, Allahabad had no jurisdiction to pass an order compulsorily retiring him. The order cannot stand and has to be quashed. 14. A further argument was addressed to the Court on the basis of S. 6 of the Railway Protection Force Act which provides as follows: "The appointment of members of the Force shall rest with the Chief Security Officer who shall exercise that power in accordance with rules made under this Act: Provided that the power of appointment tinder this section may also be exercised by such other superior officer as the Chief Security Officer concerned may by order specify in this behalf. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that only the Chief Security Officer could appoint them as Assistant Sub Inspectors. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that only the Chief Security Officer could appoint them as Assistant Sub Inspectors. There is no averment made in the counter affidavit that the Chief Security Officer has made and order under the proviso to S. 6, It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that under It. 20 of the Rules fauna under the Railway Protection Force Act the power of superior officers to appoint members of the for shall be as specified in Schedule I to' the said rules. Under Schedule I read with R. 20 the power of appointing Sub Inspectors, Assistant Sub Inspectors, Head Rakshaks, Senior Rakshaks and Hakshaks h.s been given, to the Security Officer. It is submitted, on behalf of the respondents that Sri; Sher Bahadar Singh was appointed as an Assistant Sub Inspector, by the Security, Officer in view of the provisions' of R. 20 read with Schedule 1. The rule appears to violate the provisions of S. 6 of the, Act. As the power of appointment of menihers of the Railway Protection force is to be exercised by the Chief Security Officer unless he makes an order delegating such, powers under Section 6 of the Act. It was submitted on behalf of Sri Sher Bahadur Singh' that though the Security Officer had issued' an order in his case appointing him as and Assistant Sub Inspector, it should be deemed that the order had been made by the Chief Security Officer. It is not permissible to draw this presumption. 15. When the case was called upon for hearing Sri Lal ji Singha appearing on behalf of the respondents said that the Railway Administration would entertain an appeal by the petitioners if they prefer an appeal, even though it would be beyond the time prescribed under the rules. In other words, he stated that the appeal would be considered on merits and not dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. This was an extremely fair offer in the circumstances, particularly, as it would be conducive to a better relation between the management of the Railways and the staff. The writ petition of Sri Indra Den Ojha is being allowed, while the writ petition of Sri Sher Bahadur Singh is being dismissed. This was an extremely fair offer in the circumstances, particularly, as it would be conducive to a better relation between the management of the Railways and the staff. The writ petition of Sri Indra Den Ojha is being allowed, while the writ petition of Sri Sher Bahadur Singh is being dismissed. This court trusts that if any appeal is filed by Sri Sher Bahadur Singh, the Railway Administration will consider it on merits and not dismiss it as barred by limitation. The questions raised in this petition were serious and the petitioners were not unjustified in not accepting the offer of the Railway Administration when the case came up for hearing. 16. In the result, the writ petition of Sri Indra Deo Ojha succeeds and is allowed. The order directing his compulsory retirements is quashed. He shall be entitled to be treated as if he was a member of the force ever since the date on which the impugned order of compulsory retirement in his case was passed. 17. The writ petition of Sri Sher Bahadur Singh fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs.