Appellate enhancement of penalty requires express authority, and an inapplicable vigilance clearance memorandum cannot deny an NOC.

An appellate authority may enhance a disciplinary penalty only if the governing rules expressly confer that power; absent such authority, increasing punishment from censure to demotion is without jurisdiction. The memorandum relied on for vigilance clearance could not be used to refuse a no objection certificate because it governed a different subject and did not cover the relief sought. The result is that enhancement of penalty is invalid where no enabling provision exists, and a no objection certificate cannot be withheld on the basis of an inapplicable administrative restriction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate authority had power to enhance the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to a no objection certificate for joining another post despite the office memorandum governing vigilance clearance.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate authority had power to enhance the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.

Analysis: The appellate order enhanced the punishment from censure to demotion to a lower rank. The respondents were unable to point out any provision conferring power on the appellate authority to increase the penalty. The governing rules were applied, but no enabling provision for enhancement was shown. In the absence of express statutory authority, an appellate authority cannot make the punishment more onerous to the appellant.

Conclusion: The enhancement of penalty by the appellate authority was without jurisdiction and the appellate order was quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to a no objection certificate for joining another post despite the office memorandum governing vigilance clearance.

Analysis: The reliance on the office memorandum was misplaced because it dealt with vigilance clearance, whereas the petitioner sought only a no objection certificate to join another institution. The memorandum did not govern the relief claimed by the petitioner, and its restriction could not be extended to refuse the requested certificate.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the no objection certificate and the respondents were directed to issue it.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the enhanced punishment succeeded, and consequential relief was granted by directing issuance of the no objection certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority can enhance a penalty only when an express provision confers such power, and a restriction meant for vigilance clearance cannot be used to deny a no objection certificate when that relief is not covered by the governing instrument.

---