to deal with a situation where, for a proven charge of gross misconduct, punishment of removal was not one of the punishments specified in the extant rules 13 1999 (4) SCC 759 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.4106/2021 Page 20 of 38though, punishment of dismissal was imposable. This Court set aside the punishment of removal and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for considering imposition of one or the other punishment as specified in the extant rules. 19. In the case on hand the CRPF Rules provide for imposition of the punishment of compulsory retirement though the CRPF Act itself does not provide for it in specific terms. Therefore, the argument on behalf of the respondent is that the CRPF Rules are ultra vires the CRPF Act. In support of this submission reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Subash Chandra Yadav (supra) where it was observed: “14……. It is well settled that rules framed under the provisions of a statute form part of the statute. In other words,