prescribes an altogether new punishment which is not contemplated by the CRPF Act. Hence, according to him, Rule 27 to that extent is ultra vires the CRPF Act and as such void. Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No.4106/2021 Page 25 of 3824. To determine whether the punishment of compulsory retirement prescribed in Rule 27 is ultra vires the CRPF Act, it would be apposite to first examine the scope of rule-making power conferred on the Central Government by the statute. The CRPF Act, vide sub-section (1) of Section 18, grant the power to make rules in general terms, that is, “to carry out the purposes of this Act”. And, vide sub- section (2) of Section 18, “in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power”, to make rules for all or any of the matters enumerated therein. Interpreting such a rule-making provision, in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Lakhwinder Kumar and Ors.14, a two-Judge Bench of this Court, relying on a Constitution Bench decision in Rohtak & Hissar