Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) Notice on behalf of opposite parties has been accepted by Sri P.N. Mathur.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties. They agreed that since the point involved is short, tho petition itself may be disposed of at this stage.
(3.) It appears that after departmental proceedings, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The challenge made on behalf of the petitioner is that the Senior Regional Manager who has passed the impugned order of punishment is not competent to pass that order as the appointing authority of the petitioner is Zonal Manager. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade III and was promoted as Assistant Grade II by the Zonal Manager by order dated 5-11-1971. Thereafter the petitioner was again promoted as Assistant Grade I by the same authority namely, the Zonal Manager. There is no dispute on the fact that the Senior Regional Manager is an authority lower the rank as compared to the Zonal Manager. It is also not in dispute that the impugned order has been passed by the Senior Regional Manager Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has tried to show that the Senior Regional Manager would be competent to pass that order but in that connection my attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a decision dated 8-8-1991 passed in writ Petition No. 9043 of 1989 by this Court. The facts of that case are also similar as in that case. In that case, the order of removal was passed by the Senior Regional Manager and that was held to be invalid as Zonal Manager was held to be appointing authority of the petitioner of that esse who was also promoted as Assistant Grade I by the Manager. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of this Court. I, find no good ground to deviate from the view which has already been taken by this Court in the earlier writ petition referred to above".;