ORDER This application is directed against the Judgment and order dated May 11, 2006, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has set aside not only the orders of punishment but also the entire disciplinary proceeding holding that the respondent employee was not given reasonable opportunity of being heard. The fact of the case is as follows : The respondent employee Pranab Kumar Mukhopadhyay was charge-sheeted on or about November 22, 1999 on various articles of charges of misconduct. He replied to the same and not being satisfied with his reply, regular enquiry proceeding was initiated by appointing enquiry officer. The enquiry officer after analyzing the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, found the respondent employee guilty for committing misconduct. On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, viz. the Senior Commercial Manager (P.M.) passed an order of punishment on February 23, 2001 of stoppage of one increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. This order of punishment was put in hold by letter dated July 27, 2001 by the said officer. Thereafter, a representation was made on August 20, 2001 to the said officer for withdrawal of the aforesaid punishment. The said officer by order dated February 26, 2002, instead of withdrawing the punishment, without giving any chance of hearing whatsoever, enhanced the punishment with stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. An appeal was preferred against those; orders of punishment to the appellate authority. It appears that the appellate authority did not interfere with the last order of punishment viz. stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. Challenging the said order, the respondent employee filed a mercy petition to the General Manager, South Eastern Railway and the General Manager after going through the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, had again enhanced the punishment of withholding of increment for three years with cumulative effect that of reduction in pay in grade Rs. 5,000-8,000/- by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. It is an admitted position that before enhancement of the punishment, no hearing was given although harder punishment was inflicted. 5,000-8,000/- by two stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect. It is an admitted position that before enhancement of the punishment, no hearing was given although harder punishment was inflicted. The respondent employee thereafter approached the learned Tribunal making various grievances in the body of the application, however, he prayed for the reliefs as follows : "Quashing and setting aside the impugned enhanced punishment order vide No. R. Conf/PKM-PKS/99, dated April 16, 2004 (Annexure A/20) issued by the General Manager, S.E. Railway followed by the appellate order dated October 4, 2003/November 7, 2002 and the disciplinary authority's 2nd time punishment order dated February 26, 2002 (Annexure A/8)." Therefore, it appears that the respondent employee prayed for quashing of the order of the General Manager and not other orders. There was no prayer for setting aside or quashing of the disciplinary proceeding. The learned Tribunal after hearing, set aside the orders of punishment as well as the entire disciplinary proceeding observing that the respondent employee was not given any opportunity of being heard and this was done in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the aforesaid relief was granted. Mr. P. K. Mullick, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway authority contends that the learned Tribunal has quashed the entire disciplinary proceeding without any jurisdiction as at no point of time, the employee concerned made any grievance against the disciplinary proceeding and his only grievance was against the order enhancing punishment. We called for the records and it appears that the enquiry officer has examined one witness; so it is not a case of no evidence. Moreover, it was not for the learned Tribunal to examine the legality and validity of the disciplinary proceeding as it was not challenged. Since no relief was claimed, the learned Tribunal has simply no jurisdiction to do so. Mr. Bidyut Kiran Mukherjee, learned senior Advocate appearing for the respondent employee submits that although relief was claimed against the order enhancing punishment, but if the application is read as a whole, it will appear that the challenge was against the entire proceeding including the orders of punishment. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has ample jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief. He further contends that the order of the learned Tribunal should not be interfered with. We have already noted what the learned Tribunal has done in this matter. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has ample jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief. He further contends that the order of the learned Tribunal should not be interfered with. We have already noted what the learned Tribunal has done in this matter. We are of the view that the learned Tribunal, as rightly argued by Mr. Mullick, has exceeded his Jurisdiction by granting such relief which was not prayed for. Now, it is settled law that in absence of any issue or case made out before the learned Tribunal, it cannot grant any relief nor can make any enquiry in that regard and this is reiterated in a decision a Supreme Court in V. K. Majotra v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 3909 : 2003 (8) SCC 40 . In the said decision at paragraph 8 it has been observed as follows : "The writ Courts would be well advised to decide the petition on the points raised in the petition and if in a rare case keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case any additional points are to be raised then the concerned and affected parties should be put to notice on the additional points to satisfy the principles of natural justice. Parties cannot be taken by surprise." Here, the issue, precisely before the learned Tribunal was whether the order dated April 16, 2004 enhancing the punishment was sustainable or not and it was not the issue before the learned Tribunal whether the disciplinary proceeding was lawfully conducted or not. We accordingly do not approve of the decision of the learned Tribunal, setting aside the disciplinary proceeding for the reasons stated hereunder. Now, the question remains whether the respondent employee is entitled to get relief, as asked for before the learned Tribunal or not. We have already narrated the fact that the disciplinary authority at the first instance imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Then on representation being made, the punishment was enhanced, without giving any chance of hearing whatsoever. Such order of enhancement of punishment by the same authority is not only illegal but also in violation of the principles of natural justice. We are of the view that the disciplinary authority after having passed the order of punishment, lost authority and/or jurisdiction to reconsider the matter in absence of legal provision in this regard, particularly for inflicting greater punishment. We are of the view that the disciplinary authority after having passed the order of punishment, lost authority and/or jurisdiction to reconsider the matter in absence of legal provision in this regard, particularly for inflicting greater punishment. It may be within the domain of the appellate authority but it cannot be done, under any circumstances, by the disciplinary authority. So, he had no jurisdiction to enhance the punishment. The said order, is, therefore, not sustainable for the reasons stated above. Now, the appellate authority without any application of mind has affirmed the said illegal and void order of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. This order is also not sustainable for the same reasons that the appeal was disposed of without any application of mind whatsoever. Thereafter, gross injustice has been done by the General Manager while inflicting harder punishment without affording any chance of hearing to the respondent employee. We find that the charges are merely, as summarized by the disciplinary authority while passing the order of punishment, non-collection of Rs. 5,802/- and generating four PNR tickets ignoring the genuine passengers. It appears that four PNR tickets were neither issued nor handed over to the passengers. The respondent employee's fault was that he, without collecting the fare, has generated the tickets. It may be his carelessness but he did not hand over the tickets at all. The tickets were made ready for delivery after having generated. There is no charge that he had done anything which is prejudicial to interest of and caused loss to the Railway revenue. No doubt there are prima facie allegations of carelessness and this carelessness may be deliberate or indeliberate, but that is another aspect of the matter. Since the disciplinary proceeding was not challenged, we cannot deal with the same. Therefore, all orders enhancing punishment are set aside. We are of the view that the first order of punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect is to remain, since it is not challenged. It is urged by Mr. Mukherjee that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the proportion of the aforesaid punishment was not looked into by the authority concerned. We find some force in this submission. The disciplinary authority while passing the initial order of punishment proceeded mechanically without looking into the proportion of punishment having regard to the charges made out. Mukherjee that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the proportion of the aforesaid punishment was not looked into by the authority concerned. We find some force in this submission. The disciplinary authority while passing the initial order of punishment proceeded mechanically without looking into the proportion of punishment having regard to the charges made out. We, therefore, direct the appellate authority to consider the respondent employee's representation whether the order of punishment, as sustained by us, should be given cumulative effect or not. The appellate authority must go through the reports and shall examine the gravity of the allegations, which did not cause any loss of Railway revenue nor there is any public grievance. Such representation is to be made within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on receipt thereof, the appellate authority shall consider the same and if necessary, shall give a chance of hearing to the respondent employee, only for the purpose of deleting the word "cumulative". If for any reason the punishment cannot be reduced, then detailed reasons thereof should be given and the same shall be communicated to the respondent employee within fortnight from the date of taking such decision. This application is, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the applicants.