JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mahendra Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order/charge sheet dated 24.09.2019. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was given a charge sheet on 25.06.2018 and on the basis of the same an inquiry was conducted and the punishment order dated 2.8.2018 was passed by the Senior Commandant, Railway Protection Special Force, Lucknow. Against the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal but he had withdrawn the same. Despite the same the superior authority; namely, the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 24.09.2019. A perusal of the same shows that the same is the repetition of the earlier charge sheet asking the petitioner to submit reply to the same. The same nowhere states as to whether by the same, order by the disciplinary authority is intended to be confirmed, modified or set aside or the punishment is to be enhanced, reduced or in any other manner modified or even otherwise as to what order is proposed to be passed. The same nowhere states as to whether by the same, order by the disciplinary authority is intended to be confirmed, modified or set aside or the punishment is to be enhanced, reduced or in any other manner modified or even otherwise as to what order is proposed to be passed. Rule 219.4 of the R.P.F. Rules of 1987, reads as follows:- "Rule 219.4 Any authority superior to the authority making the original order may, on its own motion, or otherwise, call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under these rules and may:- (a) confirm, modify or set aside the order; or (b) confirm, enhance, reduce or set aside the punishment imposed by the order, or impose any punishment where no punishment has been imposed; or (c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or to any other authority directing such authority to make such further inquiry as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case; or (d) pass such other orders as it may deem fit; Provided that no action under this sub-rule shall be initiated after the expiry of one year from the date of the order aforesaid: Provided further that no proceeding for revision shall be commenced until after- (i) the expiry of the period for making an appeal specified in sub-section (2) of Section 9; or (ii) the disposal of the appeal, where any such appeal has been preferred: Provided further that in a case in which it is proposed to enhance punishment further, the aggrieved member shall be given an opportunity to show cause either orally or in writing as to why his punishment should not be enhanced." 4. The same empowers the superior authority to pass appropriate orders for confirming, setting aside the order or enhancing, reducing or even to impose a punishment where no punishment is imposed or to remit the case or pass such other order as it may deem fit. It further provides that such an action can be taken within a period of one year only from the date of the punishment order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Rule 219.4 does not empower the superior authority to issue a charge sheet and thereafter initiate the inquiry at its own end. 6. It further provides that such an action can be taken within a period of one year only from the date of the punishment order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Rule 219.4 does not empower the superior authority to issue a charge sheet and thereafter initiate the inquiry at its own end. 6. Clause-B of Rule 219.4 has to be read in reference to the power given by Rule a to c of Rule 219.4, the same can only be in support of the aforesaid rules and cannot enhance the power of the superior authority to the extent that it may proceed to hold inquiry at its own level which is not permissible under any canon of the said rules. He further submits that since the initial punishment order was passed on 2.8.2018 and now the proposed order/charge sheet is passed after expiry of one year on 24.9.2019 on the same ground, it is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order can be passed under Rule Clause B of the said rules. He further submits that a show cause notice was given within a period of one year and hence the order impugned can be passed. 8. I find force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The superior authority cannot hold an inquiry at its own level but can only look into the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The Clause-B of Rule 219.4 cannot be read so exhaustively as to permit the superior authority to hold a de novo inquiry totally ignoring the inquiry already conducted and the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Even otherwise, both the orders are passed beyond the period of one year which cannot be passed as barred by the first proviso of the said Rule. 10. Thus, the impugned order dated 24.09.2019, cannot stand and is hereby set aside. 11. The writ petition is allowed.